So in lands alone (not counting the sub $1 ones), you have over $100 investment in this "budget deck".Come on.
I understand people's anger about the land cost, but it comes with the territory in an eternal format.
1. Why Swath over Ascension? 2. Does Swath add 2 point of damage for each storm counter?
awesome, really glad you wrote this. it'll be interseting to see other varants with Ascension or Past in Flames.long live U/R combo! lol and...ugh. please stop complaining about land prices, its obvious what you can replace for them to make the deck cheaper, this is a pretty budget deck regardless of land complication anyways, especially for modern
3. How would Sulfur Falls or Copperline gorge work in this mana base? I have 4 Scalding Tarn but I would like to prevent from splashing on vents and reef right now. Is this possible?
While the land prices are an issue, it doesn't seem necessary for them to be there for the deck to work. Sure, if you have access to them, they're an upgrade, I just don't see why a budget deck would splurge on lands that are convenient but not necessary.
Would putting in basic lands ruin this deck? Or would it still be able to get off some quick combos.
Here's the deal: This mana base adds consistency and a little flexibility, both of which are sorely needed with a combo deck. Without fetches and Breeding Pool you simply can't make a green splash work (Manamorphose isn't enough and 1 Hinterland Harbor is no substitute for 3 Scalding Tarns and a Breeding Pool) so you'll never flash back an Ancient Grudge. Not the end of the world but you have to acknowledge that.
More importantly, at 16 lands Fetching one is actually noticeable thinning and a Scalding Tarn into Steam Vents gives you both colors even if it's your only land. A replacement with 4x Sulfur Falls might be the best you can do but often it will be stealing your entire turn.
The deck can still win, certainly. (Pauper decks have run Grapeshot for a long time, using only commons.) But it will be less consistent. I'm not entirely certain but if I couldn't use the optimal lands I might consider pulling something like 2 Remand and a Pyretic Ritual for 2 more lands and a Compulsive Research.
Since when did this column have an originality requirement? Many of us newer players read this column for ideas, and this is new to me, and probably lots of others too.
That's not to say Jacob is bad. He often commits to his decks and I suspect they're not developed for the column but are actually an insight to his own (serious) testing. That means we sometimes get some really good tips instead of just a 60-card-pile that technically qualifies as a deck. But it's a break from previous tradition and some people still aren't over it.
And to be fair Procrastinator, you said "Many of us newer players read this column for ideas" which would certainly suggest that it should have an originality requirement. It's new to you which is fine, but every Thursday the decks of the week get published (and the online ones are dumped daily on mtgonline.com) so if you were checking coverage for current decks, then came here for a new idea, you yourself might be disappointed.
If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.
Other games you should try:DC Universe Online - action-based MMO. Free to play. Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.
Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.
4. What would you guys mull away with a deck like this? Seems like most of the starting hands would be ok.
With 16 lands mana, zero-mana hands will happen with some regularity. So that's an easy answer.
But you're on to something. Decks with many cantrips (simple spells that replace themselves via draw) traditionally are very hard to mulligan because you're going to draw cards but don't know what they are. If you had "Mountain, Slight of Hand, Seething Song, Serum Visions, and 3x Gitaxian Probe" in hand, would you mulligan that? It might be awesome or it might be terrible, depending on whether those Probes get you a blue source, or some rituals a Swath and a Grapeshot, or just more blue cantrips.
You're building to "one big turn" so you want to be able to play 4 spells (mostly rituals), a Swath, and a Grapeshot. (And hope they've done 2 to themselves, or you need another spell). And you don't want to do it later than turn 4. So mulligan based on how likely you are to reach that hand.
awesome, really glad you wrote this. it'll be interseting to see other varants with Ascension or Past in Flames.long live U/R combo! lol and...ugh. please stop complaining about land prices, its obvious what you can replace for them to make the deck cheaper, this is a pretty budget deck regardless of land complication anyways, especially for modernWhile the land prices are an issue, it doesn't seem necessary for them to be there for the deck to work. Sure, if you have access to them, they're an upgrade, I just don't see why a budget deck would splurge on lands that are convenient but not necessary. There's no real reason a budget deck would ever need fetches or shocks unless they had a horrible manabase or landfall triggers, especially when cheaper duals (Storage lands, Sulfur Falls, etc) exist.That said, I don't think the biggest problem with the deck is the land price but the stunning unoriginality of it. I ran grapeshot pauper, which has been around for quite a while, and this is the exact same thing with swath, remand, and magma jet added and rite of flame + ponder/preordain removed. I guess Tarns would make it more competitive, but they're hardly necessary.
I really don't understand why this series gets so much hate. A great player gives game logs explaining how to play high-level Magic and with a deck often less than the cost of 1 copy of the most expensive card in the format. And you people want more? Greed was a card name used too soon. It should have been an unhindged card about this mentality.
I really don't understand why this series gets so much hate. A great player gives game logs explaining how to play high-level Magic and with a deck often less than the cost of 1 copy of the most expensive card in the format. And you people want more? Greed was a card name used too soon. It should have been an unhindged card about this mentality.1.) Just because some cards are ridiculously expensive doesn't mean that any deck costing less than one of them should be considered budget. There's a bottle of wine that costs $1500; does that mean that any meal that costs $1500 or less is a budget meal? No.2.) If he splurges for a card that is integral to the deck, such as a rare he's building around, that's fine (provided it's not too expensive). But splurging for lands is not what budget is about. Basic lands, or more budget duals such as the Ravnica karoos (which artificially increase your land count, allowing you to play fewer lands, similar to the fetches' thinning), or Terramorphic Expanse, aren't that big a step down. You may have to hold off on your combo for one more turn, but considering how early the combo can happen that doesn't matter much.Yes, it's obvious which cards replace the duals when making the deck properly budget. That still doesn't answer the question: why couldn't he do what he's done a few times in the past and give us the actual budget deck, and then in a paragraph or subsection at the end give us an "improving the deck if you've got a bigger budget" section in which he tells us which lands to cut for duals, etc.? Heck, just having that section every week, so that he can appease both the budget-seekers and the competitive players each week, would be brilliant.