Casual Deck v. Sub-Par Deck

Killer Joe

New member
Is there a difference? Is a non-Net Deck considered a Casual Deck? If so, then is a Casual Deck considered a Sub-Par deck? Why not? If it's only a casual deck, then that must mean it's not tournament worthy, right? So it must be sub-par.
Here's my point: I was playing a "Friendly" game the other day and was loosing quite badly with a "Casual" deck. Was it because it was a "Casual Deck" or because it was a "Sub-Par" deck? After that game, I whipped out the ol' U/W Control and creamed my opponent. We know that a T2 U/W Control deck is NOT a friendly or casual deck, or is it?
I've cut back on Friendly/multi-player games lately due to my new direction in Magic (I call it, "The Road to Tourneyland"). But when I DO play casually now, I tend to want to reach for a "Net Deck", is that wrong?
Man, I never knew turning toward becomming a tourney player would create such cross-roads.
 
T

Thallid Ice Cream Man

Guest
Well, all my decks are Casual and thus Sub-Par (most are Sub-Par anyway), so I don't have much to add to this discussion, except a question: Why does it matter?
 
C

Cateran Emperor

Guest
I'd disagree wholeheartedly there Hetemi, casual players are not simply players who make subpar decks. They are players who aren't playing for money or a prize. They're playing for the simple reason that they want to play a game, win or lose.

I've seen many tournament players who have made it to States and such who are pathetically bad deckbuilders, they just copy Netdecks and practice using them. If they ask me to play, I whip out some insane creation and have a good time stopping them cold with some overlooked card. Is my deck subpar because I don't play it in tournaments or because other people haven't thought of it? If so, why can my "subpar" decks consistently beat Netdecks i.e. tournament decks?

Think about that.

By the way Yellowjacket, no you aren't doing anything wrong. You're playing to win, so play for however you think will do that best. You ARE doing something wrong if you ever forget the context you're in and forget that it is just a game.
 
H

Hetemti

Guest
I whip out some insane creation and have a good time stopping them cold with some overlooked card.

Precisely. The net deck loses because it's not prepared for an overlooked card. It's designed to beat the cards it will see at the tournament, not the random card that happened to be in your deck. The net deck doesn't care about your deck, only what it will see at a tournament.
 
Z

Zadok001

Guest
There is most certainly a difference between the two types of decks. Allow me a moment for an example. When I first started working on my current Type 2 B/R creation, it was sub-par. It wasn't really casual, as I had built it for a tourney, but it WAS bad.

On the other hand, my Greater Good (which I spent literally years tuning :) ) is a casual deck (albeit a sick one) that is EXTREMELY tight, capable of killing an opponent as early as turn 3 (turn 2 once, with some help from an opponent who made the mistake of playing Concordant Crossroads around me!). It's a casual deck in nature, since it's pretty inconsistant and tends to lose to red decks, but it's certainly not sub-par. It WINS.

One is sub-par. The other is casual. The difference is fairly obvious, I hope.
 
D

Duel

Guest
"Sub-par" depends on purpose.

You trying to build a tourney-level deck? Then it must be better than if you are trying to build a theme deck, chances are.

Besides, My suicide black deck is casual, but is the most effective deck I've built, capable of consistent 3rd turn kills (and able to crush greater good :)). It's casual, though. Similarly, my fires deck was bad. Sub-par without being casual. I built it to win and it didn't. So it's sub-par without being casual.
 
M

manchot_13

Guest
here is my take one what makes a take casual:

casual decks can do really cool things, like gain tons of life with my scent of jasmine deck, or my serra avatar deck, or my... (ok so life gain is my trademark). But the link as to what makes a deck casual is that it is inconsistent, there are decks that can just absolutely obliterate it. one tremor and for most of my decks it's all over...

Casual decks are not designed to beat every deck, but to follow a certain theme or win in a really unusual way... that is waht makes a casual deck, and why they can be sub par
 
U

Ura

Guest
My definitions are simple.

A sub-par deck is either a deck that never wins, or a deck built from cards trying to replace their better versions, like shock insted of bolt.

A casual deck is a deck that is built with intentions to play with friends and not in a tournament.

The net-deck only cares what it will see at tournaments?
Well if a netdeck is so easily beaten by some "random card that happens to be in your deck" wouldn't that mean that the netdeck is flawed and has a weakness to that card and thus other netdecks would be running it in sideboard at least to aid is beating the tar out of it, hence making it be at the tournament. I believe that something along the lines of metagaming? Knowing what people are playing and using cards in your deck that will help beat them easier.

I've got a W-R T2 casual deck that beats the living daylight out of T2 rebels and fires with relative ease. The problem is that it gets creamed by literally everything else in the field so its not worth playing unless I know the only decks there will be rebels and fires. The net deck should not only be able to handle whats going on in tournaments, but should be better then the stuff not in tournaments as well since your trying to make the best deck possible with as few weak spots as you can. Hence the typical casual deck shouldn't win against the typical net deck, but then again, stranger things have happened.

Whats that? Angry Hermit was a casual deck and it won tournaments before becoming a netdeck? Nahh, must have been just some random piece of cardboard that the netdecks didn't expect. ;)
 
D

Darsh

Guest
I consider casual decks as using cards that you like, if you can tune it to make it win, well thats a nice bonus.:)

Example: My casual Pestilence deck wouldn't win a tournement(even is it was legal for a one)but I have fun playing it, so it's a casual deck.
 
D

Duel

Guest
My rebel deck doesn't get all dressed up, just wears jeans and a white t-shirt. It's a casual deck.
 
G

Gizmo

Guest
A casual deck does not set out to win, at least that is not it`s main aim. A casual deck sets out to create an interesting game. Casual decks are not sub-par, they are different. I`m sorry, but I don`t care how many bad spells are in your green monsters + Ancestral Mask deck - it`s not casual, its just sub par.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
A good example is my elf-fat deck. It uses some really good cards with synergy (Killer Bees and Weatherseed Treefolk are both amazing in that deck) that might not go so well elsewhere. But I don't use sub-par cards just because it's casual. I like to think of it as 'casual, but good'...not *quite* tournament-worthy, but then, that's not where I'd want to play it anyway.
 
D

Duel

Guest
How about my hurricane-elf deck? The point is to kill everyone. It CAN win, with stream of life, btu doesn't. The deck is supposedm to be fun, not win. to put people on a clock. It's casual, right?
 
A

Apollo

Guest
I'd say that many casual decks set out to accomplish some goal, which is not necessarily winning. In Duel's case, it is to kill everyone. In another deck, maybe you want to deal 20 damage with a Prodigal Sorcerer. In another, maybe you want to create 100 Saprolings. A deck can be casual and sub-par, if the deck is not well-designed to suit its purpose, but it is not necessarily both. And sub-par certainly doesn't mean casual; a poorly built Trix is not casual, but it is sub-par.

I hope that made sense...
 
D

Duel

Guest
I had a u/w/b deck that was based off giving everybody about 20 life a turn by pinging my grollub(sounds vaguely dirty). I told everyone the point was to give them life, but there are better ways to do that. Actually, the point was to allow me to say "Ping the Grollub" as many times as I can. I love that phrase.

Now THAT is a casual deck.
 
N

Nyx

Guest
I'd say that for me the difference is that a casual deck is one that is fun to play whether or not you win with it, and whether or not you are on the dealing or the receiving end.

A sub-par deck is one that loses more often than it wins.

Many casual decks are sub-par, but not all of them by a large margin. A few are deliberately sub-par.

I know I often pass over outstanding cards that would make one of my theme decks far more potent, but because they don't further its theme, they don't make the cut. Thus I deliberately design a sub-par casual deck. Other times, I pick a theme that is large enough, or potent enough that even as a casual deck it rocks.

If you can't see the difference between sub-par and casual, ask yourself this: Is there a difference between a T2 deck and a sub-par deck?

Even the best T2 deck will get slaughtered by a good T1 (capable of a 1st-turn kill) more often than not. Even most Extended will own the T2 deck. So clearly T2 decks all suck right? Not even close IMO.
 
Top