This thread is for discussion of this week's Building on a Budget, which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Nice to see that you built a deck based on Sanguine Bond! When it first came out, it was one of the first cards I wanted to break from M10.
I too thought that the way to go is a BW version over a mono-black, or a GWB version. While Wall of Reverence seemed like an obvious choice, my list included Plumveil as it is heavier on the white side. I like your Ruel of Eos tech, as soul warden is indeed an underrated creature now.
Another difference between your list and mine is that I included Feudkiller's Verdict over Necromancer's Covenant. Due to Kitchen Finks and Wall of Reverence, you tend to end up getting that 5/5 after all. Plus, it has insane synergy with Sanguine Bond!
Interesting... my first shot at it was just Bw.
Child of Night
1 Baneslayer Angel (because I have 1)
Tendrils of Corruption
1 Necromancer's Covenant (just for kicks)
1 Wound Reflection (just for kicks)
I was actually very surprised how out of control Tainted Sigil + Sanguine Bond can get once you get multiples into play. Especially in the casual room, people don't realize that it takes very little damage for them to go lethal. In one game I had one Bond and three Sigils out (people will remove the Bonds but ignore the Sigils... and the deck actually ends up lasting a long time with the removal and life gain and great blockers in the Skulks) and my opponent didn't realize that when he hit me for 3 damage he ended up taking 21 damage right back.
Edit: Sorry for the ugly post... first time posting in the new forums (which were a pain in the butt to try to get to... for some reason the change over reset my password, and then had to do all that profile stuff). Not sure how to make it look better.
I have a friend running a very interesting WRb deck, barely splashing enough black for Sanguine Bond. The rest is pure RW, with a playset of Balefire Lieges. It's like playing Boros Deck Drains!
And yes, as the matchups reminded me... why the heck have I not got Giantbaiting in my Warrior deck? Silly me!
I was disappointed to only see three matches. The lack of Tainted Sigil also disturbed me. At the very worst it's a 3cmc pseudo-fog. Sigil is also quite budget. Where was infest? It's the closest thing to a sweeper black has right now. It might ruin the whole Soul Warden idea but it's really needed, SB at the least. I would have paired that up with Deathgreater. A solid pull for the Ranger, and a simple advantage if you have to sweep. I was also shocked to not see a singleton Profane Command over Tendrils. But I digress, just search Bad Bond to see what I think of the archetype.
I have loved and have been playing this deck, and have even beaten variations of the mirror (focusing on things like Angel's Mercy [no autocards, so it's 2WW - instant - you gain 7 life] and Tendrils action), but have adopted nearly an entirely difference and defensive goal. Using Soul Warden and Wall of Reverence with any variety of large creature (Battlegrace Angel, Baneslayer Angel, or Divinity of Pride), you can easily dominate and defeat the opponent. With Wall and Bond, any amount of lifegain on your part kills the opponent, and Tainted Sigil just allows you to finish them off. The deck can win without ever attacking, and it makes even the smallest piece of the puzzle (Soul Warden) a win-con. Some players should realize that Finks is SICK in this deck, and one of the best defensive elements to the deck. Winning off of Finks+Wall+Bond is a common occurence for me.
I hate Sanguine Bond costs 5 mana...or rather, that Honor of the Pure costs two mana, Baneslayer Angel costs the same as Serra Angel and that Sanguine Bond costs 5 mana.
Now then, back to Dark Rit->Bond in my mostly Hybrid B/W Martyr of Sands deck.
I built a deck based on Sanguine Bond a while ago, its also WB, but interestingly enough Sanguine Bond itself and Kitchen Finks are the only two cards in common. My version wins most of its games by passing Angel's Mercy through Boon Reflection and then Sanguine Bond for 14 (life for me, death for them) then repeats with Tainted Sigil.
I was initially worried about whether I could win without Sanguine Bond, and found that winning was not out of reach without it. True, winning is harder without the Bond of the board, but not impossible. The most notable case was when I got a turn 4 Progenitus dropped on me via Polymorph (my board consisted of a Tainted Sigil, Knight of the Meadowgrain and Child of Night). My opponent went on to play Maelstrom Archangel and Darksteel Colossus - both dealt with by Path to Exile. I had enough life and life gain to keep breathing while I hit for 2 or 4 each turn and could finally profane command his last 5 life to take the win.
Also, I agree with the comment about Infest. Its a good way of clearing a bunch of weenies off the table and dealing with Cloudgoat Ranger and Seige-Gang Commander. Nets you 2 life/Finks on your baord, too.
and my opponent didn't realize that when he hit me for 3 damage he ended up taking 21 damage right back.
For the math, this is something I've never actually acheived:
1. Get hit for 3, pop a Sigil, you gain 3, and he loses 3. Total life lost goes from 3 to 6.
2. Pop Sigil #2, you gain 6, he loses 6. Total life lost goes up to 9.
3. Pop Sigil #3, you gain 9, he loses 9. Total life lost goes up to 18.
Note that this is life loss, not damage, and won't trigger things like Spinerock Knoll.
i have built my own b/w saguine bond deck and i took it a slightly diffrent way then what i have seen here based around ad nausiam with one or two tainted sigels on the field
this is what i enter it in type 2 tournaments quite a bit
plz let me know what you all think of the concept
To bad these articles really only focus on Standard legal decks. My Sanguine Bond / Illusions of Grandeur deck is just so much fun!
For the math, this is something I've never actually acheived:1. Get hit for 3, pop a Sigil, you gain 3, and he loses 3. Total life lost goes from 3 to 6.2. Pop Sigil #2, you gain 6, he loses 6. Total life lost goes up to 9.3. Pop Sigil #3, you gain 9, he loses 9. Total life lost goes up to 18.Note that this is life loss, not damage, and won't trigger things like Spinerock Knoll.
Um, after #2, total life lost goes to 12.
That's sucks.There is no "Wow it's great combo or smth."
Corrupt - dunno what it is doing here. You need smth to protect ur life on the first steps.
You'll be dead before you can play Bond on your 5-6 step. There are a lot of Burning and Aggro decks in the metagame. I said this and keep saying. There should be something more than the lategame power. W/B Deck posted by one of the users on da 1st page is smth. which can be changed and have some chances on the tournaments.
+ As it was said million times this deck doesn't seems like the budget one.
JVL making a casual deck based on a crap rare ??? Wow, I didn't think our most Spike BOAB writer would go that far to please his readers, but that's cool ! The deck itself is interesting, and I like its defensive elements and nice interactions. Keep making that kind of deck once in a while !
However, please stop making such AWFUL puns in your articles titles. "Bond. Sanguine Bond". Come ooooooon... It seems puns have the been the norm in article-naming for a few months, and I'm starting to get annoyed. I wonder if the writers choose their titles themselves, and if so, if they're actually asked to use as many puns as possible...
I love sanguine bond!
I had been running it as a one-of in my WB wall of boood-rite of consumption deck, until i realized how amazingly it works with tainted sigils!
"Swing for 2 with putrid warior, we both lose 1. Break a sigil, i gain 4, you lose 4. Break another sigil, I gain 8, you lose 8."
It feels Awesome!!!
4x Wall of Blood
3x Putrid Warior
4x Children of Korlis
1x Wall of Hope
2x Dash Hopes
2x Path to Exile
2x Soul Spike
2x Zealous Persecution
4x Beseech the Queen
4x Right of Consumption
2x Sign in Blood
3x Sanguine Bond
4x Taintted Sigil
2x Orzhov Bazilica
1x Leechridden Swamp
this is kinda blah to me. i know i'm in the minority (edit: maybe not in terms of readers but in terms of the people posting on the boards), but i think you should stick to your strengths and go for something tournament viable. and i second the idea of the tainted sigils, they are sweet here.
edit: the weird auto-enforced spacing on the quotes is really hideous. there's so many independent spacing issues it makes reading posts painful. way more scrolling than necessary is involved. i've actually placed the text on either side of the quotes literally as close as it can go and it's still spaced out all far like that.
Actually, you're the only person to say that so far. What cards in this deck were not budget for you online?
Would it kill you to actually spell out "something"? Maybe it's just the new boards making me cranky...
When I first saw the topic, I was excited to see a Noel deCordova article, because he's my favourite writer currently on the site (favourite writer of all time is Jay Moldenhauer-Salazar), and the card I saw is definiely not tournament playable. Then I started reading and realized I've already seen this deck for about a month on That Program and was wondering why Noel (removed)write about a deck everyone knows about already.
Then I got to the end, clicked the "reply on message boards" button, and realized it's a Jacob van Lunen article. That explains pretty much everything(removed)
The explanation I'm still waiting for is how he took a deck that costs probably about $20 (the first GWB list), added about $50 worth of cards to it (4 Ranger and 4 Wall of Relevance), and still gets away with calling it "building on a budget". (removed)
(Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...)
if you're spending $50 on a playset of wall of reverence and ranger of eos, then you're very bad at buying cards. like very very bad. a playset of those (totally neat and worth owning) cards will cost you closer to 25 bucks if you get them from an honest shop owner, and if you shopped smart on ebay you could probably do it for 20 or under (shipping included).
edit: looking on ebay i see someone recently got a mint playset of ranger for 3.29.
Thus spake Star City Games (where most people go to for the "official" value of cards)
Ranger of Eos = $4
Wall of Reverence = $4
4 of each = 4x4 + 4x4 = 16x2 = $32
Fine, so I was off by a lot. However, he increased the cost of the deck by more than double by adding 8 cards. The point still stands. The deck was already budget, and he made it more expensive in a column focused on building cheap decks. Thus, idiot.
calling someone an idiot for not conforming to your personal preferences in their column seems a little strong. but what would you call someone for failing to do basic research before making outrageous claims about said "idiot?" hasty perhaps. or redundant.
If I can build a deck for $20, and you can build it for $50, your deck is not budget. My deck is budget because it does essentially the same thing, perhaps not as well, for a significantly smaller price tag. This is what "building on a budget" is all about: making the best use of the money you have at your disposal. It doesn't matter what research you do or do not do. Prices are prices. Hell, I can get any amount of Black Lotus I want for free; all I have to do is find a Vintage tournament, find people playing them, and steal them. Does that mean JVL should put Black Lotus in his decks? Obviously not. Prices are what people say are prices, and most people say Star City Games is the source for prices. Therefore, JVL is not building on a budget.
And if this was the first time JVL did this, I would not be so harsh with him. I remember about 2 months back, JVL took a deck (I don't remember what it was), removed Cryptic Command from it, added a bunch of other cards, and it made the dec more expensive than it would have been if he'd just replaced Cryptic with Cancel straight-up, but a significant amount (also about $15-20 if memory serves). He has a habit of pulling this stuff, and I'm tired of it, especially since BoaB used to be one of my favourite columns.
Edit: My keyboard sucks. I'm not going to fix the typos.
Double edit: Please link me to the eBay store (not eBay auction, I want an eBay *store*) where I can find these prices. I want an eBay store because if it's one auction, it's a guy who got lucky. If it's a store, I can buy them too, and perhaps (maybe, but not likely), SCG is wrong.
If I can build a deck for $20, and you can build it for $50, your deck is not budget.
if they use different cards these would not be the same decks. you can say "i built the sanguine bond deck for 20 bucks," but if it sucks and i don't want to play it it doesn't matter how budget it is. by your logic of "cheaper is better" i can build the best sanguine bond deck ever:
1 sanguine bond
damn, man! that's one hell of a budget deck, right?
This is what "building on a budget" is all about: making the best use of the money you have at your disposal.
and somehow you think there's a single unarguable definition for that. if you make a deck that i think is too weak and don't want to play, and i have enough money to buy a playset of wall of reverence and ranger of eos (which i do, because 2.50 or less is a good price to pay for a solid rare i'll be using in more than one deck), then by making a better deck for me i'm making the best use of the money i have at my disposal. the key to understanding this is my budget and my opinion of the best way to make a deck are different than yours. and we aren't the only two people with those opinions either.
Prices are what people say are prices, and most people say Star City Games is the source for prices.
lol. i don't. i say actually looking at what they go for and using more than one resource is the way to go.
blackborder says the ranger goes from 1.89 to 3.99. findmagiccards says it is worth 2.20, but they sell 'em for 1.89.
some low prices from ebay completed auctions:
so we got some foil, some multiples, etc. you can do the math here, but it's definitely not 4 bucks a ranger. and this is just a few of many. feel free to say all these people are "getting lucky." but in case you utterly reject auctions out of some bizarro ridiculous logic:
ranger of eos, near mint, 2.50 with free shipping. from a store. and the stores tend to up the prices from what you'd get in an auction. you're paying for the certainty of recieving the item.
you sure are bad at this, huh! if it makes you feel any better, i used to be not so great at it too (even somewhat recently!). but live and learn, right?
Regarding your "decklist": Don't be stupid. There's ridiculousness on one side and ridiculousness on the other. If you can't argue without being ridiculous, your argument holds no weight.
Regarding your eBay link: OK, that's fair. It's unlikely people will go by anything but SCG, since it's pretty much the standard these days. I know a store that sets their prices to match SCG, not eBay or anything else, so that goes to show SCG's power on the MtG market. Whether you agree or not, SCG's prices are the official prices most of the Magic world goes by. If you can find things cheaper, good for you, but SCG is still the standard.
Regarding "best use of your money": Would you rather buy one deck for $50, or 2 decks for $20 each and have $10 left over, assuming no great difference in power level? Let me put it another way: Would you rather buy JVL's deck, or 2 Tarmogoyfs? If you're already spending $50 on your deck, you may as well buy a couple Tarmogoyfs. At least those are good outside of casual. For people who are playing casual Magic, they want the most bang for their buck. They want to be able to have as much fun as they can for as little money as they can, because they know they'll never make any money playing this game. Take it from me, I'm one of these people. They don't want to buy random rares "just because", and it's just silly to think that a supplementary card for their deck should cost as much as the rest of the deck combined. Building on a budget is taking an expensive deck and making it cheap and accessible, not taking a cheap deck and making it expensive with the excuse of "oh, I like it better that way". That's called "not caring about your audience".
The article would have been better if he had cut it off right after the first BWG list and said "this is a deck that contains no rares, so it's playable in Peasant (I think, maybe it's Pauper) and is a blast to play around the kitchen table. Have fun". At least I would have had respect for him. He stole someone else's idea and did no work of his own, but at least he wouldn't have made a fool of himself yet again.
I seriously wish someone would take this guy out of everyone else's misery. Maybe InQuest or Scrye could use another writer...
Ah, I see how that store runs. Have you seen their shipping fees to anywhere outside the US? As a Canadian, I'm appalled you would even bring that store up to me. $16 for shipping to Canada, plus $1 per item. For 4 Ranger of Eos and 4 Wall of Reverence, that's about $45 for me. That makes this deck cost about $70, by your own admission, for me to buy in Canada. I can get Star City rates with no shipping fee. Therefore, this deck costs $50 under your own admission.
it's no more ridiculous than you decreeing from your throne of budgetdom whether or not someone's decklist is budget or not. your argument was literally "if i can build the deck this cheap than anything more expensive isn't budget." that ignores the contents of the deck and the preferences of the player, which are...hmm... kind of important. my example followed your logic, so i can't take credit for it being ridiculous.
It's unlikely people will go by anything but SCG, since it's pretty much the standard these days.
lol dude according to who? i've never used scg to check card worth. as far as i know none of my friends do either. the stores i used when i first started buying cards used blackborder prices and the store i go to now roughly goes by findmagiccards.com and ebay. your assertion that starcitygames sets the price for "most of the magic world" by their mighty website seems like a slight exaggeration.
Regarding "best use of your money": Would you rather buy one deck for $50, or 2 decks for $20 each and have $10 left over, assuming no great difference in power level?
once again you say this like there's a single correct answer. there isn't. some people would prefer to spend 50 bucks on a deck they like rather than 20 bucks on two decks they don't like that are mediocre to them. your opinion of "no great difference in power level" is guaranteed to be extremely subjective. i don't know what else to say to you about this because you refuse to accept it and it's pretty much fundamental to being a human.
If you're already spending $50 on your deck, you may as well buy a couple Tarmogoyfs.
50 bucks does not spontaneously mutate into more money. having 50 bucks doesn't make me rich. if i want to spend an extra 20 bucks to make the deck suck a lot less, that doesn't mean i'm rich. it just means my definition of budget is different than yours.
For people who are playing casual Magic, they want the most bang for their buck. They want to be able to have as much fun as they can for as little money as they can, because they know they'll never make any money playing this game. Take it from me, I'm one of these people.
you're one of what people? the entire casual magic crowd? wow that must be...schizophrenic. you really don't see how totally ridiculous it is to speak for a huge group of people you don't know and have never met? really?
i play magic casually and i like this column. i'm not a tournament player, dude. how does that figure into your equation?
That's called "not caring about your audience".
you're not his audience. i'm sorry if you find this upsetting, but i'm sure you'll get over it.
because we're close personal friends i knew you were canadian and of course brought it up (and didn't pull it up at random to prove a point) to insult you. the fact that their canadian shipping is expensive invalidates the fact that you were very, very wrong about the average price of the card.
i just offered you help in finding cheaper cards. if you want to continue paying extra because you don't want to shop around on ebay then by all means go ahead. although it's not very budget to do that, is it?
Oh, shut up.
Are all Canadians such douches?
This article is the reason BoaB isn't on my list of must reads like Bens; was for a while, or JMS' always will be. As I always do,I'll say that objectively, I don't think there's anything wrong with JVL articles. Decks are usually solid and he explains his choices fairly. But personally, I either really like them or am completely bored by them. That's because some articles have really creative decks, or interesting ways of using staple cards, but then there's decks like this that feel like they're the exact same deck I've seen posted every three days on the casual forum. But, that's my taste in decks. I was happy to see the other decklists.
Constructively, the only thing I can really ask for is please do more articles with deck development. The current crop of BoaB articles feel so abrupt, and I think just one round of changes to the deck would make it a better read, and overall better for the readers to experience. A lot of the best deck-building advice I've gotten came from BB and JMS because of how they'd play some matches and tune the deck, to see how they played then. I suppose the current mindset is 'here's a budget deck, here's how it plays', and it is reaching fans since you can see stuff pop up in the casual room after a new BoaB is posted, I just feel the previous writers made the article more accessible to all levels of player because it wasn't just what they did, but why.
Ah, I see how that store runs. Have you seen their shipping fees to anywhere outside the US? As a Canadian, I'm appalled you would even bring that store up to me. $16 for shipping to Canada, plus $1 per item. For 4 Ranger of Eos and 4 Wall of Reverence, that's about $45 for me. That makes this deck cost about $70, by your own admission, for me to buy in Canada. I can get Star City rates with no shipping fee. Therefore, this deck costs $50 under your own admission.because we're close personal friends i knew you were canadian and of course brought it up (and didn't pull it up at random to prove a point) to insult you. the fact that their canadian shipping is expensive invalidates the fact that you were very, very wrong about the average price of the card.i just offered you help in finding cheaper cards. if you want to continue paying extra because you don't want to shop around on ebay then by all means go ahead. although it's not very budget to do that, is it?
Haha I have no idea who you are, nor do I want to. Nobody I am "close personal friends" with reads mtg.com, except Steve Sadin's articles, which are at least decent and don't pretend to be something they're not. You must have me mistaken with someone else...
Edit: Upon rereading your post, I definitely don't know you, because everyone I consider "close personal friends" who play Magic are primarily tournament players, with one exception who doesn't shop on eBay.
i actually have no idea if you're joking or not.
Not joking. I have no idea who you are, really. My Magic playgroup is pretty much all tournament players and they almost all think pretty much anything on MTG.com except Steve Sadin (and occasionally Mike Flores) is not worth reading. I, at least, give MaRo, Noel, Tom, and Kelly some time when I'm bored.
a) i was being sarcastic. i don't know you.
b) edit: nevermind. ah, reading comprehension.
a) i was being sarcastic. i don't know you.b) steve sadin and mike flores? you mean, the two most competitively minded guys on the site? and you're whining about jvl trying to show you some competitive decks on the cheap? what the hell is wrong with you, man?!
b) steve sadin and mike flores? you mean, the two most competitively minded guys on the site? and you're whining about jvl trying to show you some competitive decks on the cheap? what the hell is wrong with you, man?!
If you're going to be competitive, be competitive. I play tournaments too (I'm primarily a casual player, but I like playing tournaments when my friends are going). But the point is, don't try to be competitive when you're not and don't try to be casual when you're not. If your article is "Top Decks", you can talk about top decks. If your article is "Limited Information", give me information about Limited. By the same token, if your article is "Building on a Budget", BUILD ON A DAMN BUDGET.
ok maybe i'm confusing you with all the text, so i'll make this really simple:
budget. doesn't. have. a. single. definition.
budget is different for different people.
you understand? or no?
The debate over whether or not JVL builds budget decks or not has been around since his first articles, but as far as I know he doesn't have a solid guideline so I don't know how you could say he DOES or DOESN'T make budget decks in so much as it applies to the article. Ben had his 30 ticket rule, so it was easy to see if he was staying on budget in his articles, but JVL's budget seems to be 'not as pricey as better decks of standard'. I don't think he's ever said it'd be otherwise, so thats another thing I don't like but don't condemn him for.
the issue here is that the (person) seen above thinks "budget" has a clear cut monetary definition that jvl is violating, and doesn't seem to understand why i might disagree with that logic.
(Trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...)
I guess we have differing opinions. My definition of "building on a budget" is that if there's a build of a deck that works, make it cheaper. If there's no build of a deck, make one in the cheapest way you can think of (e.g. replace dual lands with basic lands, Cryptic Commands with whatever card corresponds to the most-likely mode it's used for, Noble Hierarch with Druid of the Anima, etc). Taking an existing deck and making it more expensive is neither of these. If taking a cheap existing deck and making it more expensive is part of your definition of building on a budget, fair enough. I hope one day to see one of your budget decks win a PT, if you're going to be spending that kind of cash on them. I, for one, know my budget decks are bad. However, since they're really cheap to build and really fun to play casually, I don't care.
JVL's budget seems to be 'not as pricey as better decks of standard'.
This is the part I don't like. With Baneslayer Angel and Cryptic Command in the format, he can pretty much build any deck he likes and it would be considered "budget". Heck, he could almost use an original Mox in his deck at those prices!
I hope one day to see one of your budget decks win a PT, if you're going to be spending that kind of cash on them.
"that kind of cash?" what, 50 bucks? you don't have a clue what it costs to build a competitive standard deck, do you?
I hope one day to see one of your budget decks win a PT, if you're going to be spending that kind of cash on them."that kind of cash?" what, 50 bucks? you don't have a clue what it costs to build a competitive standard deck, do you?
Out of curiosity, what's your definition of "budget"? The most expensive deck in standard today costs well over $200 (probably well over $300, but I don't have the patience to price it out). Does that mean you'd be willing to call a $200 deck "budget"? JVL would.
Also, I know exactly what it costs to build a competitive standard deck. That's acually exactly why I don't play competitive standard.
Fae was costing upwards of $600 during its heyday, iirc. Silly mana-bases. ..For this topic though, I think it's all about perecption of what should and shouldn't be considered in a buget deck article.Ertai, have you considered writing JVL an email and seeing if you can get his take on your issues? I don't think i've seen him post much in these topics, but I'm in them rather scarcely...