Chiefs, chiefs, chiefs, chiefs, etc., misc., et. al.,
You have to use a Net Deck? There are only 5 viable decks? Far be it from me (not really) to think that those statements are incorrect, but I think they are terribly misguided.
First off, saying that you have to use a Net Deck to succeed is akin to saying that "I wanna be like Mike." I just have a problem with people giving up on originality because everyone "knows" that Rogue decks don't have a chance. Everything without Rebels, Counterspell, or Fires has no chance? Forgive me if I refuse to believe that, even if Kai "oh darn, I can't draw into the Top Eight" Budde says so.
While the card pool definately rewards using Net Decks, believing that there are only 5 viable deckytpes seems a bit cynical and plain insane. Just because everyone else has determined the decks to beat, does that mean they are right? Oh, yeah, they're pros, and pros are always right. One thing that seems to get little mention is how pros, while they putz around with Rogue decks, have their butts on the line and realize that it's much easier to use an established archtype than take the time to see the forest for the trees. Pardon me for not walking into the slaughterhouse with the rest of the sheep; just because I don't swallow conventional wisdom doesn't mean that I don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Although, if you give me enough time, I'll prove my ignorance many times over. Probably. Or not.
So, use Counterspell, Rebels, and Fires or lose? That's the kind of defeatist attitude that will ensure that there are no breakthroughs in deck construction. Well, at least until the pros find something different. I contend that if once you determine that there are only 5 viable decktypes to play, you have conceeded any ideas of overcoming your station; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I guess I'll need to make the Pro Tour and do very well for people to start believing that they can be more than cookie cutter scrubby versions of the pros. If you are willing to conceed that the pros are right, and the results from PT - Chicago are the end-all be-all of Type 2, then more power to you. But here's to thinking that there is usually more than meets the eye.
Tell Paul Barclay that he needs to use Trix to do well in Extended. He didn't believe it, thus he came up with a new, improved Net Deck for everyone to worry about. And they will. Next year in Extended: Do I play Trix or Full English Breakfast? Oh wait, what about The Life Deck?
Limiting your options, even if that appears to be the obvious right play, is serious bad times. Believing the hype is additional bad times. If it is established that there are only 5 viable decktypes, how can that information not be exploited? If you know what 80% of your opponents will be playing, are you telling me that no one can come up with a way to destroy those who'd rather download their decks than figure out how to beat them?
I contend that there is rarely an environment that can't be beaten (or at least able to be exploited) by thinking outside of the box. While being a cynic has it's fine points, fighting the power and sticking it to the man can work better sometimes. The current Type 2 is one of those times.
John Friggin' Rizzo
