I have to say that your "rogue" decklist doesn't seem like a very good example, as it is literally just U/W control with ratchet bombs subbed out for pyroclasms, and condemn out for lightning bolt (and red added to the manabase to allow this). I can see the logic in doing this (it's certainly better against quest-weenie, for example), but it seems like more of an evolution of U/W than a new deck. I also don't know whether it's worth the additional complexity on the mana-base.
Anyway, the list in question clearly wasn't the main point of the article, and the rest of the article is good content. Perhaps it would have been worth looking at a deck which has recently gone from rogue to mainstream, and have a look at what elements of the meta it was that the deckbuilder picked up on to design the deck. Vampires seems like a fine example, having popped up as a totally rogue mono-B list and gradually become B/R, and a fairly large part of the metagame.
A few articles like this and you'll see me playing 100CS again; so would you please stop writing these articles?!! :)).
Good job as always. In my opinion (which doesn't mean much actually) Sensei should be legal. Scapeshift should be legal. Gifts is a powerful tutor, so I may understand the banning (and Fact or Fiction is a different card, so you shouldn't compare those two in my opinion).
But banning Mind Twist doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Here I'm not sure if it's so much systematic or more just a system to make personal opinion seem more legitimate than just personal opinion. At least this helps organize the voices in your own head lol. In any case I don't currently play 100cs so my opinion on the issue is certianly most likely less legitimate than yours and I'm not trying to shoot you down, just giving the voices in my head access to the keyboard probably in error.
I'd also like to say to start that I don't think bannings are good for the game in any case(Live with your mistakes Wizards), so these comments are based on what I think bannings should be if were going to have them at all.
Sensei's divining top, very good, I actually don't like playing with it even though I know that if it's legal I pretty much would have to. I think it actually might be far more powerful than it gets credit for but not enough for banning, I don't mind it being banned though since it's super annoying to have in any game. I think group games back in the day were 25% people playing with their tops and 75% everything else, so again I think an exception is defensible for this thing.
Mind Twist, this thing is just dumb, and I certianly think it should be banned, it's not only x cards, but x cards at random. I've played with it and against it and in either case it made most of the games with it based on it's effect.
Imperial Seal, I just don't like good tutors in 100cs, it breaks the purpose of the format, people end up having 10 tutors or more in their deck and it's just silly, losing a card and 2 life is pretty minimal compared to only having to spend 1 mana. I don't have a problem with this one being banned at all if were banning things.
Scapeshift and survival have tutor problems built into them, so this just depends on how degenerate they are in the current meta, They both seem like they can be pretty bad depending on what options are available.
Only card here I'd have a problem with banning if were banning things would be Library of Alexandria(and maybe Jitte), seems slow to me for the current environment and easily disposed of, also doesn't win the game right away like many of the others.
I almost 100% agree with all of your analyses. But then I don't play the format anymore so my opinion may be less informed than most other players who do.
I don't think Gifts should be unbanned as fun as the card can be, it can also be extremely unfun for the player facing it and can as you say just win with a fetchable/regrowable combo. That said it is counterable so any argument about it being inevitable can be discarded.
Jitte seems more broken by far than SoFI and I recall quite a few games when I ran decks with both swords (before SoBM existed) that my opponent actually said something derogatory about SoFI. (Talk about a card that brings Emrakuls through Angry Opponent ratings.) Jitte is worse by far. Turn 1 Duelist, turn 2 Jitte, turn 3 unstoppable juggernaut. Well of course there is removal but even that doesn't solve the problem of the counters on the equipment. The card turns every creature into that hard-to-oppose lethal damage machine. I say keep it banned and consider putting SoFI on the watch list. But then again maybe not as anything creature related is inherently unbreakable right?
Wheel of Fortune seems like a card made for the format. I would think it is less broken than Scapeshift. But I have played with it and not Scapeshift so what do I know? Again as someone who does not play the format anymore (since it veered strongly away from being a casual format with tourney players seeking practice in the casual room quite randomly) I would place little weight on my opinion here.
I think the main problem with deciding what is ban-worthy and what isn't is that almost all cards can be countered or destroyed or exiled in some fashion. A card that can't be should certainly be banned. Cards that make doing so much harder should probably be banned and cards that get around such means of dealing with them are dangerous indeed. There are plenty of cards/interactions which make the format completely uncasual but do not "break" the format. (IE: nothing fun about them (even for the player running them), like that silly infinite turn deck you mentioned a couple of times, but they can be stopped with appropriate meta planning and sideboarding.)
Nice article, fully worthy of 5xFireballs. As you said the topic is very subjective and brings out people's emotions so it is notable that everything said about the above cards and format should be taken with plenty of salt and a lot of water too. In the end, I think being a member of a ban committee is an unenviable position. There is no winning no matter what choices you decide upon. That said...what the heck were they doing when they decided to ban Moat from TWL???
Original does not mean unique. Original means he came up with it himself. If you doubt the veracity of this statement there is nothing we can do to prove it. I however am inclined to believe Lord Erman when he speaks as he has always been truthful to me in the past and carries himself with much integrity and forthrightness.
Great comment Xaos - tho I would say that "most powerful cards in the format" is rather open to interpretation. For example "most powerful" in respect to deck, metagame or to take advantage of the rogueness.
Jace 2.0 for example is a powerful card, however in many decks it is not as powerful as other cards may be if the builder/player looked at their strategy well. In fact I would personally consider Primeval Titan a more powerful card in most cases. And no doubt depending on the angle and level of rogueness this could be a Steel Hellkite, or heck even a Goblin Guide.
WOTC gives us many powerful cards if applied right and used the right way in the right deck. Not all necessarily Mythic/Rare. A good rogue player can often see past this and look moreso at the deck at hand.
If we were to list what people thought the most powerful card was and then compared it to daily lists I think we would be surprised in a lot of cases. Cultivate itself on turn 2 is a powerful card.
This is not to say that including a Jace or 4 Primevals makes your deck non rogue. It is about building, approach, testing, learning and experience.
There are certianly degrees to roguishness in constructed based on various angles of unusual approach,
1: your own build (different numbers of cards, adding an unusual splash, combining popular/powerful cards in a new way but with strong similarities to currently or recently successful builds)
2: using cards people have rarely seen in events before (the lifegain deck was very rogue when it first came out for this reason just like Eldrazi green was and Pyromancer's Ascension)
3: using an established deck build that has fallen out of favor for a long enough period of time.
An important thing to be aware of: every netdeck was initially a rogue deck somewhere at some point.
Another important thing is that just because a deck is budget doesn't make it rogue, for instance I never really found vampires to be a rogue strategy, maybe a cheap one, but usually also a bad one. (maybe lately this has changed)
Lord Erman goes rogue to win, not just to be cute and win more by winning different, instead he looks to go different in order to win as he says in the article.
If you're looking to win trying to do so without often playing the most powerful cards in the format is a formula for failure imo.
Like many players, I build a wide arrangement of decks. I am not a 'net deckker' as experience in the format is enough, however I think what people are getting at moreso is many do not feel Jace fits into the rogue mold as such. Thing is there are "full on" rogue decks and decks which are comparable with similar decks except for their rogue elements.
I actually feel in most cases netdecks are weak simply as they are often outdated relative to the format and metagame development. A self built deck whether it has the exact list the same as another deck on the net is more powerful as the player has experience in building/usage. MTG is a game of cards and playing and I believe that is what this article is highlighting. Looking at the elements of the game that going rogue on will help give you position, win condition or an extra slice of pie (friendly ante)
I think one of the best reasons for rogue deckbuilding is the surprise factor. Many inexperienced players will pick up a net-deck, practice a few games against some of the well-known match-ups and start playing aggressively. Those players can be surprised by a rogue deck to the point where they will not know how to play optimally against it. This factor and the fact that your opponent most likely doesn't have a sideboard plan against you is enough to give you an edge.
Of course this only works against the average masses who copy decks and don't think outside the box very well. Against pros this tactic isn't very effective.
rogue never means budget. rogue means rogue. budget means budget they are two different things. Must budget builders have to play rogue decks by necessity. But rogue deckbuilders dont have to follow a budget
Gotta chime in, since there are so many issues in play. NIce article on rogue deckbuilding, by the way. I have to admire those deckbuilders who soldier on independently in the face of netdecks.
First, "going rogue" is the opposite of net decking. It's building a deck independently, rather than relying on the deckbuilding efforts of others. While building a conceptually novel deck (like the original soul sisters incarnation mentioned in the article) is a more pure form of rogue deckbuilding, I think it is also fair to say that building a deck specifically to take advantage of the metagame is also rogue deckbuilding, since you are building your own deck rather than using someone elses. It's just not quite so pure, since in a lot of ways it is derivative of the netdecks of others.
Cost considerations are completely tangential to whether or not a deck is a rogue deck or netdeck. Going rogue does not equal building on a budget.
While net decks are typically very powerful and highly tuned machines, it is possible to netdeck a weak deck. Perhaps early tournament results are misleading for some reason, resulting in a less than optimal deck getting copied by many people. Until someone develops and publishes a better deck, the lemmings will all trot out the same inherently weak deck.
The combination of the popularity of magic and the internet dealt a blow to Magic deckbuilding that it never really recovered from, on an individual level. It's very hard to be both a Johnny and a Spike these days, since it's very hard to develop a deck that can survive long enough to really show off something impressive against the carefully crafted decks that are already out there.
Depending on the year I'd more likely be the one sad-face among the happy-faces, though this year I certianly feel like the smiley-face dude for a few reasons.
This is a pretty good guide for anyone trying to break into standard, and anyone who is serious about it should have a little "rogue" in them or always be a couple of steps behind the meta.
I have been building single artist decks like these since my Richard Kane Ferguson deck when alliances came out, and will gladly play in any event I can make it to in this format. I tried to get this started online a year or so ago in the casual room, and found 3-4 people to play regularly. We played for about 2 weeks, and then the others seemed to lose interest. I still have about 10-15 decks for this format built, and am ready to go whenever you want a game. Let me know..
We always allowed any artists for the lands tho.. for example RKF has never done any lands to my knowledge. Also allowing the lands to be un-restricted helps when playing cards that are awful by today's standards because they fit the artist (tribe).
Hi guys and thanks for the comments. Sadly I see that the discussion is a bit centered around the deck in the article which wasen't the intention actually. Maybe I shouldn't have added the screenshots.
The main idea here is how to build rogue decks, what they are in the first place and why you may like them (because there are advantages of playing rogue decks). The deck then was an example. If I really wanted to write about that specific deck, I would have done so in a seperate article and in more detail.
Gimli, my overall is higher than my constructed because the ratings in that game start at 1500. So that 1531 limited rating is the equivalent of 1631 of MTGO (roughly of course). So you can read those ratings as Constructed: 1928 - Limited: 1631 - Overall: 1945 (again, roughly).
Sharing your method of building decks beside netdecking for standard is great to me! I hopesome guys will try to build there onw decks now. A meta-hate deck is rogue enough to me :-)
I disagree with this statement. Going rogue does not necessarily mean "coming up with an original or unused interaction." It certainly does encompass that statement. But rogue can be building a deck that is not mainstream.
His deck is rogue in that it has originality. Just cause he is using mainstream cards does not take away the deckbuilding skills he talked about.
While I enjoyed the article, that's a metadeck, not a rogue deck.
Rogue is coming up with an original and unusual engine or interaction. This deck is just a choice of cards well-geared against a specific metagame. It is not even 1000 miles close to rogue.
"And more importand i think that rogue deckbuilding in most cases is building on a budget. This 500$+ deck does not seem rogue to me."
This statement is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. People who go rogue are still trying to win and if you are trying to win then budget should NOT be an issue.
Random matches in tournament practice room will not show you "metagame".
Look at event coverage at mtgonline.com - your best source for netdecking. Netdecking was never so simple.
40% - valacut ramp
30% - control
and only 30% left to aggro (boros / ww quest / vampires)
So your Rogue deckbuilding is not what you are speaking about.
And more importand i think that rogue deckbuilding in most cases is building on a budget. This 500$+ deck does not seem rogue to me.
Hating on netdecks is just muddled thinking. The word netdeck is shorthand for collaborative design, and when you pick up a netdeck you're gaining the benefit of thousands of hours of thinking and playtesting that went into those decks by many individuals. Going rogue is fine too, but you limit yourself to the work you can do in the time you have, which for most people is always going to result in a less perfect product than a current tier 1 netdeck.
I have to say that your "rogue" decklist doesn't seem like a very good example, as it is literally just U/W control with ratchet bombs subbed out for pyroclasms, and condemn out for lightning bolt (and red added to the manabase to allow this). I can see the logic in doing this (it's certainly better against quest-weenie, for example), but it seems like more of an evolution of U/W than a new deck. I also don't know whether it's worth the additional complexity on the mana-base.
Anyway, the list in question clearly wasn't the main point of the article, and the rest of the article is good content. Perhaps it would have been worth looking at a deck which has recently gone from rogue to mainstream, and have a look at what elements of the meta it was that the deckbuilder picked up on to design the deck. Vampires seems like a fine example, having popped up as a totally rogue mono-B list and gradually become B/R, and a fairly large part of the metagame.
A few articles like this and you'll see me playing 100CS again; so would you please stop writing these articles?!! :)).
Good job as always. In my opinion (which doesn't mean much actually) Sensei should be legal. Scapeshift should be legal. Gifts is a powerful tutor, so I may understand the banning (and Fact or Fiction is a different card, so you shouldn't compare those two in my opinion).
But banning Mind Twist doesn't make any sense to me at all.
LE
I like systematic systems for analyzing cards,
Here I'm not sure if it's so much systematic or more just a system to make personal opinion seem more legitimate than just personal opinion. At least this helps organize the voices in your own head lol. In any case I don't currently play 100cs so my opinion on the issue is certianly most likely less legitimate than yours and I'm not trying to shoot you down, just giving the voices in my head access to the keyboard probably in error.
I'd also like to say to start that I don't think bannings are good for the game in any case(Live with your mistakes Wizards), so these comments are based on what I think bannings should be if were going to have them at all.
Sensei's divining top, very good, I actually don't like playing with it even though I know that if it's legal I pretty much would have to. I think it actually might be far more powerful than it gets credit for but not enough for banning, I don't mind it being banned though since it's super annoying to have in any game. I think group games back in the day were 25% people playing with their tops and 75% everything else, so again I think an exception is defensible for this thing.
Mind Twist, this thing is just dumb, and I certianly think it should be banned, it's not only x cards, but x cards at random. I've played with it and against it and in either case it made most of the games with it based on it's effect.
Imperial Seal, I just don't like good tutors in 100cs, it breaks the purpose of the format, people end up having 10 tutors or more in their deck and it's just silly, losing a card and 2 life is pretty minimal compared to only having to spend 1 mana. I don't have a problem with this one being banned at all if were banning things.
Scapeshift and survival have tutor problems built into them, so this just depends on how degenerate they are in the current meta, They both seem like they can be pretty bad depending on what options are available.
Only card here I'd have a problem with banning if were banning things would be Library of Alexandria(and maybe Jitte), seems slow to me for the current environment and easily disposed of, also doesn't win the game right away like many of the others.
X-
I almost 100% agree with all of your analyses. But then I don't play the format anymore so my opinion may be less informed than most other players who do.
I don't think Gifts should be unbanned as fun as the card can be, it can also be extremely unfun for the player facing it and can as you say just win with a fetchable/regrowable combo. That said it is counterable so any argument about it being inevitable can be discarded.
Jitte seems more broken by far than SoFI and I recall quite a few games when I ran decks with both swords (before SoBM existed) that my opponent actually said something derogatory about SoFI. (Talk about a card that brings Emrakuls through Angry Opponent ratings.) Jitte is worse by far. Turn 1 Duelist, turn 2 Jitte, turn 3 unstoppable juggernaut. Well of course there is removal but even that doesn't solve the problem of the counters on the equipment. The card turns every creature into that hard-to-oppose lethal damage machine. I say keep it banned and consider putting SoFI on the watch list. But then again maybe not as anything creature related is inherently unbreakable right?
Wheel of Fortune seems like a card made for the format. I would think it is less broken than Scapeshift. But I have played with it and not Scapeshift so what do I know? Again as someone who does not play the format anymore (since it veered strongly away from being a casual format with tourney players seeking practice in the casual room quite randomly) I would place little weight on my opinion here.
I think the main problem with deciding what is ban-worthy and what isn't is that almost all cards can be countered or destroyed or exiled in some fashion. A card that can't be should certainly be banned. Cards that make doing so much harder should probably be banned and cards that get around such means of dealing with them are dangerous indeed. There are plenty of cards/interactions which make the format completely uncasual but do not "break" the format. (IE: nothing fun about them (even for the player running them), like that silly infinite turn deck you mentioned a couple of times, but they can be stopped with appropriate meta planning and sideboarding.)
Nice article, fully worthy of 5xFireballs. As you said the topic is very subjective and brings out people's emotions so it is notable that everything said about the above cards and format should be taken with plenty of salt and a lot of water too. In the end, I think being a member of a ban committee is an unenviable position. There is no winning no matter what choices you decide upon. That said...what the heck were they doing when they decided to ban Moat from TWL???
Original does not mean unique. Original means he came up with it himself. If you doubt the veracity of this statement there is nothing we can do to prove it. I however am inclined to believe Lord Erman when he speaks as he has always been truthful to me in the past and carries himself with much integrity and forthrightness.
Great comment Xaos - tho I would say that "most powerful cards in the format" is rather open to interpretation. For example "most powerful" in respect to deck, metagame or to take advantage of the rogueness.
Jace 2.0 for example is a powerful card, however in many decks it is not as powerful as other cards may be if the builder/player looked at their strategy well. In fact I would personally consider Primeval Titan a more powerful card in most cases. And no doubt depending on the angle and level of rogueness this could be a Steel Hellkite, or heck even a Goblin Guide.
WOTC gives us many powerful cards if applied right and used the right way in the right deck. Not all necessarily Mythic/Rare. A good rogue player can often see past this and look moreso at the deck at hand.
If we were to list what people thought the most powerful card was and then compared it to daily lists I think we would be surprised in a lot of cases. Cultivate itself on turn 2 is a powerful card.
This is not to say that including a Jace or 4 Primevals makes your deck non rogue. It is about building, approach, testing, learning and experience.
Good luck PureMTGOroguers
There are certianly degrees to roguishness in constructed based on various angles of unusual approach,
1: your own build (different numbers of cards, adding an unusual splash, combining popular/powerful cards in a new way but with strong similarities to currently or recently successful builds)
2: using cards people have rarely seen in events before (the lifegain deck was very rogue when it first came out for this reason just like Eldrazi green was and Pyromancer's Ascension)
3: using an established deck build that has fallen out of favor for a long enough period of time.
An important thing to be aware of: every netdeck was initially a rogue deck somewhere at some point.
Another important thing is that just because a deck is budget doesn't make it rogue, for instance I never really found vampires to be a rogue strategy, maybe a cheap one, but usually also a bad one. (maybe lately this has changed)
Lord Erman goes rogue to win, not just to be cute and win more by winning different, instead he looks to go different in order to win as he says in the article.
If you're looking to win trying to do so without often playing the most powerful cards in the format is a formula for failure imo.
X-
Like many players, I build a wide arrangement of decks. I am not a 'net deckker' as experience in the format is enough, however I think what people are getting at moreso is many do not feel Jace fits into the rogue mold as such. Thing is there are "full on" rogue decks and decks which are comparable with similar decks except for their rogue elements.
I actually feel in most cases netdecks are weak simply as they are often outdated relative to the format and metagame development. A self built deck whether it has the exact list the same as another deck on the net is more powerful as the player has experience in building/usage. MTG is a game of cards and playing and I believe that is what this article is highlighting. Looking at the elements of the game that going rogue on will help give you position, win condition or an extra slice of pie (friendly ante)
How is it original? Just by not being a list on a GP T8 somewhere?
That's not originality, at least in my book.
I think one of the best reasons for rogue deckbuilding is the surprise factor. Many inexperienced players will pick up a net-deck, practice a few games against some of the well-known match-ups and start playing aggressively. Those players can be surprised by a rogue deck to the point where they will not know how to play optimally against it. This factor and the fact that your opponent most likely doesn't have a sideboard plan against you is enough to give you an edge.
Of course this only works against the average masses who copy decks and don't think outside the box very well. Against pros this tactic isn't very effective.
rogue never means budget. rogue means rogue. budget means budget they are two different things. Must budget builders have to play rogue decks by necessity. But rogue deckbuilders dont have to follow a budget
Gotta chime in, since there are so many issues in play. NIce article on rogue deckbuilding, by the way. I have to admire those deckbuilders who soldier on independently in the face of netdecks.
First, "going rogue" is the opposite of net decking. It's building a deck independently, rather than relying on the deckbuilding efforts of others. While building a conceptually novel deck (like the original soul sisters incarnation mentioned in the article) is a more pure form of rogue deckbuilding, I think it is also fair to say that building a deck specifically to take advantage of the metagame is also rogue deckbuilding, since you are building your own deck rather than using someone elses. It's just not quite so pure, since in a lot of ways it is derivative of the netdecks of others.
Cost considerations are completely tangential to whether or not a deck is a rogue deck or netdeck. Going rogue does not equal building on a budget.
While net decks are typically very powerful and highly tuned machines, it is possible to netdeck a weak deck. Perhaps early tournament results are misleading for some reason, resulting in a less than optimal deck getting copied by many people. Until someone develops and publishes a better deck, the lemmings will all trot out the same inherently weak deck.
The combination of the popularity of magic and the internet dealt a blow to Magic deckbuilding that it never really recovered from, on an individual level. It's very hard to be both a Johnny and a Spike these days, since it's very hard to develop a deck that can survive long enough to really show off something impressive against the carefully crafted decks that are already out there.
Gotta love the lone smiley-face dude,
Depending on the year I'd more likely be the one sad-face among the happy-faces, though this year I certianly feel like the smiley-face dude for a few reasons.
This is a pretty good guide for anyone trying to break into standard, and anyone who is serious about it should have a little "rogue" in them or always be a couple of steps behind the meta.
(Great smiley-face flash cartoon for the morbidly inclined: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/165898)
X-
All these people looking for another PRE to play in lol, I don't have enough time in the week to host any more at the moment.
I have also worked out the details for a K-Scope PRE as well in the classic format but time is my enemy.
One of the other decks I built was for Richard Kane Ferguson, I've not completed it yet though.
I have been building single artist decks like these since my Richard Kane Ferguson deck when alliances came out, and will gladly play in any event I can make it to in this format. I tried to get this started online a year or so ago in the casual room, and found 3-4 people to play regularly. We played for about 2 weeks, and then the others seemed to lose interest. I still have about 10-15 decks for this format built, and am ready to go whenever you want a game. Let me know..
We always allowed any artists for the lands tho.. for example RKF has never done any lands to my knowledge. Also allowing the lands to be un-restricted helps when playing cards that are awful by today's standards because they fit the artist (tribe).
Hi guys and thanks for the comments. Sadly I see that the discussion is a bit centered around the deck in the article which wasen't the intention actually. Maybe I shouldn't have added the screenshots.
The main idea here is how to build rogue decks, what they are in the first place and why you may like them (because there are advantages of playing rogue decks). The deck then was an example. If I really wanted to write about that specific deck, I would have done so in a seperate article and in more detail.
Gimli, my overall is higher than my constructed because the ratings in that game start at 1500. So that 1531 limited rating is the equivalent of 1631 of MTGO (roughly of course). So you can read those ratings as Constructed: 1928 - Limited: 1631 - Overall: 1945 (again, roughly).
Thanks again for the comments.
LE
Greatv article! I will have this in mnd when building a pauper standard deck!
Sharing your method of building decks beside netdecking for standard is great to me! I hopesome guys will try to build there onw decks now. A meta-hate deck is rogue enough to me :-)
Good article!
Question though...How can your overall rating be higher than your constructed rating?
I disagree with this statement. Going rogue does not necessarily mean "coming up with an original or unused interaction." It certainly does encompass that statement. But rogue can be building a deck that is not mainstream.
His deck is rogue in that it has originality. Just cause he is using mainstream cards does not take away the deckbuilding skills he talked about.
While I enjoyed the article, that's a metadeck, not a rogue deck.
Rogue is coming up with an original and unusual engine or interaction. This deck is just a choice of cards well-geared against a specific metagame. It is not even 1000 miles close to rogue.
"And more importand i think that rogue deckbuilding in most cases is building on a budget. This 500$+ deck does not seem rogue to me."
This statement is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. People who go rogue are still trying to win and if you are trying to win then budget should NOT be an issue.
Random matches in tournament practice room will not show you "metagame".
Look at event coverage at mtgonline.com - your best source for netdecking. Netdecking was never so simple.
40% - valacut ramp
30% - control
and only 30% left to aggro (boros / ww quest / vampires)
So your Rogue deckbuilding is not what you are speaking about.
And more importand i think that rogue deckbuilding in most cases is building on a budget. This 500$+ deck does not seem rogue to me.
Hating on netdecks is just muddled thinking. The word netdeck is shorthand for collaborative design, and when you pick up a netdeck you're gaining the benefit of thousands of hours of thinking and playtesting that went into those decks by many individuals. Going rogue is fine too, but you limit yourself to the work you can do in the time you have, which for most people is always going to result in a less perfect product than a current tier 1 netdeck.