12/15/2011 BoaB: "Burning Vengeance"

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Building on a Budget, which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.

First reaction: YES! BURNING VENGEANCE WITHOUT SNAPCASTER!

Second reaction: I haven't even seen a Chandra's Phoenix in a trade binder for a few months now. What's a good replacement?

And Edit: And you say he doesn't listen. A suggestion: Phyrexian Metamorph can replace the Phantasmal image usually pretty painlessly.

Anyone else notice that he seems to be playing with a lot of suboptimal cards? He's got a few absolute bombs (Phoenix, Chandra, Images in Sideboard) but he's really backed off on playing the most competitive list possible.
I have a somewhat similar decklist except I have a set of Delver of Secrets instead of Chandra's Phoenix who always transforms the next turn due to all the instants and sorceries in the deck as well as having Ponder to control my topdeck, which always makes him a top priority in my playgroup. The deck also plays a copy of Past in Flames for some extra mileage for all the other sorceries or instants without flashback, although I'm still in need of a good mana accelerant to make the deck even better.
First reaction: YES! BURNING VENGEANCE WITHOUT SNAPCASTER!

Second reaction: I haven't even seen a Chandra's Phoenix in a trade binder for a few months now. What's a good replacement?

And Edit: And you say he doesn't listen. A suggestion: Phyrexian Metamorph can replace the Phantasmal image usually pretty painlessly.

Anyone else notice that he seems to be playing with a lot of suboptimal cards? He's got a few absolute bombs (Phoenix, Chandra, Images in Sideboard) but he's really backed off on playing the most competitive list possible.



I built a Burning Vengeance deck recently that's mostly the same as his. My version started with 4 Delver of Secrets and 2 Chandra's Phoenix, and I have to say... I'm going to drop the Delvers as soon as I buy the rest of the Phoenix playset. That said, if you can't get the Phoenix, Delver is a reasonable replacement. It's just wildly inconsistent, and you'll have to run Ponders in order to get it going.

Also, with regards to Snapcaster... Frankly, I don't think the deck really needs it. In fact, I'm not sure there would be room for him in the deck, even though it appears he would synergize very well. The thing is, most of your spells have flashback to begin with, and between Desperate Ravings and Think Twice, you're going to fill up your graveyard faster than you might think. I suppose it would be nice to have the option of flashingback your Mana Leaks, though... I just don't know what I would take out for him. 
A few things to say.

Last week, a lot of readers were upset about the difficulty of acquiring some of the cards in my Modern Heartless Summoning deck. This week, I'm going to make sure the deck I write about is especially easy to acquire.

I built the deck on ChannelFireball.com, and it came out to $88. Yes, that's better than you've been doing lately, but if that's your idea of "especially easy to acquire" then I think you need to step down from this position, right now.

But more importantly, you're missing the point. Most of the feedback last week wasn't about that specific deck. It was the fact that all of the decks you've been building lately have been rather expensive, almost exclusively over $100 for the last couple of months. This is not a column about building whatever you want; this is a column about building decks that people without $100+ to drop on a deck can afford to take to an FNM.
Many suggestions have been put forth, and you've only taken one of them, and the easiest one at that: Suggesting alternatives, without actually changing your decklist. I'm glad you're reading the feedback, but please do more than read it: listen to it.
Set a budget, even if it's $100 (most people, me included, would prefer $50, judging by the feedback). Then do everything you can do to make sure your decklist isn't more expensive than that budget.
Sure, occasionally you could build a deck that breaks that budget, I'm sure most people wouldn't mind too much, as long as it's the exception and not the rule. But to build decks where the cheapest you can muster is $88, in the Budget column, is folly. You're completely ignoring the low-end of budget. We need a spectrum. One week, build a $100 deck, then build a $30 deck next week. We don't need another column about placing winning as top priority; if that's what we want, we have Top Decks, with around 8 decks every week for us to copy.

And again, you still place no emphasis on the building aspect of the column. You come into the column with a completed decklist, tell us why you're running the cards, but not how you arrived at those choices! You don't tell use about other builds you may have tried, and what about those builds worked and didn't work. I don't come to the Building on a Budget column to netdeck!!

And one last note: Your sideboard is only 14 cards.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)
First reaction: YES! BURNING VENGEANCE WITHOUT SNAPCASTER!

Second reaction: I haven't even seen a Chandra's Phoenix in a trade binder for a few months now. What's a good replacement?

And Edit: And you say he doesn't listen. A suggestion: Phyrexian Metamorph can replace the Phantasmal image usually pretty painlessly.

Anyone else notice that he seems to be playing with a lot of suboptimal cards? He's got a few absolute bombs (Phoenix, Chandra, Images in Sideboard) but he's really backed off on playing the most competitive list possible.



I built a Burning Vengeance deck recently that's mostly the same as his. My version started with 4 Delver of Secrets and 2 Chandra's Phoenix, and I have to say... I'm going to drop the Delvers as soon as I buy the rest of the Phoenix playset. That said, if you can't get the Phoenix, Delver is a reasonable replacement. It's just wildly inconsistent, and you'll have to run Ponders in order to get it going.

Also, with regards to Snapcaster... Frankly, I don't think the deck really needs it. In fact, I'm not sure there would be room for him in the deck, even though it appears he would synergize very well. The thing is, most of your spells have flashback to begin with, and between Desperate Ravings and Think Twice, you're going to fill up your graveyard faster than you might think. I suppose it would be nice to have the option of flashingback your Mana Leaks, though... I just don't know what I would take out for him. 



Yeah, there's 2 people at the local FNM who have been running Burning Vengeance decks recently. Gets annoying, because they almost always mirror match at some point and hold up the rest of the tournament. They both play playsets of Snapcaster, using it to bounce back mana leaks and slagstorms. It got so annoying that I would actually name Snapcaster Mage if I got a second nevermore in my hand after sideboard.
TwelfthTone: it is obvious you have never played with or against Snappy. He is everything this deck wants to do. He allows you to play less counterspells, he doesn't let the other play spells when you have four mana up and a leak in the yard, and he turns your necesary cards without flashback into a way to win. He is also a coral merfolk and can get a lot of damadge in against UB or Solar Flare
A few things to say.

Last week, a lot of readers were upset about the difficulty of acquiring some of the cards in my Modern Heartless Summoning deck. This week, I'm going to make sure the deck I write about is especially easy to acquire.

I built the deck on ChannelFireball.com, and it came out to $88. Yes, that's better than you've been doing lately, but if that's your idea of "especially easy to acquire" then I think you need to step down from this position, right now.

But more importantly, you're missing the point. Most of the feedback last week wasn't about that specific deck. It was the fact that all of the decks you've been building lately have been rather expensive, almost exclusively over $100 for the last couple of months. This is not a column about building whatever you want; this is a column about building decks that people without $100+ to drop on a deck can afford to take to an FNM.
Many suggestions have been put forth, and you've only taken one of them, and the easiest one at that: Suggesting alternatives, without actually changing your decklist. I'm glad you're reading the feedback, but please do more than read it: listen to it.
Set a budget, even if it's $100 (most people, me included, would prefer $50, judging by the feedback). Then do everything you can do to make sure your decklist isn't more expensive than that budget.
Sure, occasionally you could build a deck that breaks that budget, I'm sure most people wouldn't mind too much, as long as it's the exception and not the rule. But to build decks where the cheapest you can muster is $88, in the Budget column, is folly. You're completely ignoring the low-end of budget. We need a spectrum. One week, build a $100 deck, then build a $30 deck next week. We don't need another column about placing winning as top priority; if that's what we want, we have Top Decks, with around 8 decks every week for us to copy.

And again, you still place no emphasis on the building aspect of the column. You come into the column with a completed decklist, tell us why you're running the cards, but not how you arrived at those choices! You don't tell use about other builds you may have tried, and what about those builds worked and didn't work. I don't come to the Building on a Budget column to netdeck!!

And one last note: Your sideboard is only 14 cards.



I don't see why everyone is trashing this column; I don't think he intended for anyone to go and buy the ENTIRE deck outrite, you should have some cards in your collection, the only card that would be hard to get would get the Phoneix and Chandra maybe the ONE slagstorm, which he gave a suggestion to replace.  If getting only one rare that comes out to about 20$ for a playset is too much and not budget than I don't know what is.  This deck is super easy to get, mostly commons and uncommons and a handful of easy to aquire rares

There are some points with this deck I would like JVL to explain:


A) Why not use 4 shimmering grotto to fix your mana base?

B) Arc trail? too expensive?

C) Frightful delusions not so good?

D) Images are too expensive. Evil twin is it a good alternative?

E) If u are using shrines why not use Volt charge?            
    
I like the deck idea; I have enough cards to make up the majority of the list (I happen to own only one copy of Chandra, The Firebrand, so it works out well). I can take the Phoenix's and shrines out of an older RDW deck I've lost interest in, and pick up the Dissipates and Desperate Ravings on the cheap. 


There are some points with this deck I would like JVL to explain:


A) Why not use 4 shimmering grotto to fix your mana base?

B) Arc trail? too expensive?

        
    



I would assume that the Shimmering Grotto's would do more harm with that extra cost. As for Arc Trail, There have been many times I've wished for them to be an instant instead of a sorcery. 


Let me first say, this deck is a great improvement on last weeks/months. So job well done!
But i still would like more focus on the deck building process.


A few things to say.

Last week, a lot of readers were upset about the difficulty of acquiring some of the cards in my Modern Heartless Summoning deck. This week, I'm going to make sure the deck I write about is especially easy to acquire.

I built the deck on ChannelFireball.com, and it came out to $88. Yes, that's better than you've been doing lately, but if that's your idea of "especially easy to acquire" then I think you need to step down from this position, right now.

But more importantly, you're missing the point. Most of the feedback last week wasn't about that specific deck. It was the fact that all of the decks you've been building lately have been rather expensive, almost exclusively over $100 for the last couple of months. This is not a column about building whatever you want; this is a column about building decks that people without $100+ to drop on a deck can afford to take to an FNM.
Many suggestions have been put forth, and you've only taken one of them, and the easiest one at that: Suggesting alternatives, without actually changing your decklist. I'm glad you're reading the feedback, but please do more than read it: listen to it.
Set a budget, even if it's $100 (most people, me included, would prefer $50, judging by the feedback). Then do everything you can do to make sure your decklist isn't more expensive than that budget.
Sure, occasionally you could build a deck that breaks that budget, I'm sure most people wouldn't mind too much, as long as it's the exception and not the rule. But to build decks where the cheapest you can muster is $88, in the Budget column, is folly. You're completely ignoring the low-end of budget. We need a spectrum. One week, build a $100 deck, then build a $30 deck next week. We don't need another column about placing winning as top priority; if that's what we want, we have Top Decks, with around 8 decks every week for us to copy.

And again, you still place no emphasis on the building aspect of the column. You come into the column with a completed decklist, tell us why you're running the cards, but not how you arrived at those choices! You don't tell use about other builds you may have tried, and what about those builds worked and didn't work. I don't come to the Building on a Budget column to netdeck!!

And one last note: Your sideboard is only 14 cards.



I don't see why everyone is trashing this column; I don't think he intended for anyone to go and buy the ENTIRE deck outrite, you should have some cards in your collection, the only card that would be hard to get would get the Phoneix and Chandra maybe the ONE slagstorm, which he gave a suggestion to replace.  If getting only one rare that comes out to about 20$ for a playset is too much and not budget than I don't know what is.  This deck is super easy to get, mostly commons and uncommons and a handful of easy to aquire rares



The problem is: newer players dont have a big card selection, making the deck about 80$ to build.
But also, magic isnt popular everywhere, i have, for example, almost no good trading possibilities. This means, that if i want a new deck deck, i have to buy almost all cards instead of trading for them.

On the deck. I like to know why there is 1 Silent Departure. It seems a little random.
I dont think there is room for it, but playing Gitaxian Probe along counterspells is always nice. 
The Phoenix idea is nice!!! It should give the deck what i thought it needed.
How to Autocard
card: [c]cardname[/c]-> [c]Vampire Nighthawk[/c] -> Vampire Nighthawk
This week, sans the Metamorph oversight, was on the mark.  It wasn't perfect, but it was on the mark.  There were alternatives listed, 'if/but' clauses.. even a rogue enough deck.

I will say this though, this CAN be budget. HOWEVER, it is still a rather hard deck to play well.  If you wanna windmill slam a Vengence and call it a day, you aren't gonna have a great night.  The Shrine is a great (budget) backup plan.  

To those who yell budget this, and $'s that.. he even claimed you could cut the Chandra.  The Phoenix isn't crucial, but compared to a more expensive manabase, yes I would go so far as to say vital.  

Arc Trail should probably be in the SB if Illusions is all over your area.  That part wasn't quite clear.

Other things I would list as considerations:
Ponder
Red Sun's Zenith (Devil's Play)
Forbidden Alchemy (upgrade mana, or up Grotto to 2-3)
Claustrophobia (blue's Journey to Nowhere)
Sensory Deprevation (cheaper/less mana intensive)
Shrine of Piercing Vision (it is an idea for colorless additions)
Ratchet Bomb (vs Tokens/Illusions)

Overall I feel satisfied with this week's article.  It had more soul, not enough to leave me fully satisfied, but I read every week.  I too would have liked more decision trees, or alternative card selection, but good enough.
Budget check:

12x Island = $0
10x Mountain = $0
1x Shimmering Grotto $0.05 = $0

4x Chandra's Phoenix $3.80 = $15

4x Burning Vengeance $0.03 = $0
4x Desperate Ravings $0.03 = $0
4x Dissipate $0.25 = $1
4x Geistflame $0.02 = $0
4x Incinerate $0.05 = $0
4x Mana Leak $0.25 = $1
3x Rolling Temblor $0.03 = $0
1x Silent Departure = $0
1x Slagstorm = $2
4x Think Twice = $0

1x Chandra the Firebrand = $9

3x Ancient Grudge $0.02 = $0
3x Flashfreeze $0.03 = $0
3x Phantasmal Image $9 = $27
4x Shrine of Burning Rage $1.50 = $6

Total cost: $61
To Chronego: What seems to be a missed concept is how difficult it is to make a deck that is both inexpensive and can win games. It is very easy to keep a deck under $50 but to do well with it consistantly is where it gets tricky - what's the point of playing a cheap deck if it's still just a pile. You're right, this isn't the top teck blog but just because it isn't, doesn't mean that Jacob has the right to post bad decks. I think his blog is about good building with lesser cards. Furthermore, you seem to forget that magic players, including new players, are intelligent enough to make these decks their own - which would mean build to their own budget and styles - Jacob is merely providing a foundation to a deck. Additionally, I would like to point out that my idea of a budget deck would be under $100 (like Dave Caplan's Mono-Red), where as yours is obviously under $50. My point being is "budget" is a loose term that many people define differently. As long as Jacob can provide alternatives to both building a better more expensive version and lesser cheaper version I will be content with his articles - this week, the only thing I feel he missed was suggesting Phyrexian Metamorph as a substitute for Phantasmal image, which would put this deck well under $50 (if you are using the pricing posted by Sam which I think is more accurate).

On a side note, I am not sure about this deck in standard but I have been playing it in Innistrad Block and I have gone 11-3 in 2 player tournaments. Silent Departure is really strong against many decks. I would of actually liked to see a couple more in Jacob's list as some of the decks in standard focus on a tempo-based strategy. Also, I have been finding Blasphemous act is better than Roilling Tremblor and is still somewhat inexpensive. However, this is only in my block version. With a faster Standard format I could see roilling Tremblor being better.

Good Article IMO,

Let us not forget how difficult it is to create competive decks with lesser cards.


A few things to say.

Last week, a lot of readers were upset about the difficulty of acquiring some of the cards in my Modern Heartless Summoning deck. This week, I'm going to make sure the deck I write about is especially easy to acquire.

I built the deck on ChannelFireball.com, and it came out to $88. Yes, that's better than you've been doing lately, but if that's your idea of "especially easy to acquire" then I think you need to step down from this position, right now.

But more importantly, you're missing the point. Most of the feedback last week wasn't about that specific deck. It was the fact that all of the decks you've been building lately have been rather expensive, almost exclusively over $100 for the last couple of months. This is not a column about building whatever you want; this is a column about building decks that people without $100+ to drop on a deck can afford to take to an FNM.
Many suggestions have been put forth, and you've only taken one of them, and the easiest one at that: Suggesting alternatives, without actually changing your decklist. I'm glad you're reading the feedback, but please do more than read it: listen to it.
Set a budget, even if it's $100 (most people, me included, would prefer $50, judging by the feedback). Then do everything you can do to make sure your decklist isn't more expensive than that budget.
Sure, occasionally you could build a deck that breaks that budget, I'm sure most people wouldn't mind too much, as long as it's the exception and not the rule. But to build decks where the cheapest you can muster is $88, in the Budget column, is folly. You're completely ignoring the low-end of budget. We need a spectrum. One week, build a $100 deck, then build a $30 deck next week. We don't need another column about placing winning as top priority; if that's what we want, we have Top Decks, with around 8 decks every week for us to copy.

And again, you still place no emphasis on the building aspect of the column. You come into the column with a completed decklist, tell us why you're running the cards, but not how you arrived at those choices! You don't tell use about other builds you may have tried, and what about those builds worked and didn't work. I don't come to the Building on a Budget column to netdeck!!

And one last note: Your sideboard is only 14 cards.



So, I usually just read the article and peruse the postings about it, but I feel rather strongly that Jacob is getting a bad rap here. One usually picks a deck and works on improving it until one is bored, no? Even if one has zero cards, the first purchase of a deck one makes should last one quite a while. Do you guys have jobs, or even a part-time job? $61 or $88 or whatever is not that much considering the amount of entertainment that a good deck can supply. People spend $60 on ridiculous video games all the time. If you want to build a deck for $20, it's not going to stand a chance against anyone but your buddies aroudn the kitchen table who also spent $20 on their deck, that's just the reality.  
There are some points with this deck I would like JVL to explain:


A) Why not use 4 shimmering grotto to fix your mana base?

B) Arc trail? too expensive?

C) Frightful delusions not so good?

D) Images are too expensive. Evil twin is it a good alternative?

E) If u are using shrines why not use Volt charge?            
    



A) Shimmering Grottos acts as a filter, so if you want to cast a slagstorm and only have an island, mountain and grotto you're out of luck. It basically makes you tap an extra land to get the proper casting cost. One helps, but more than one? just becomes a hinderance because they don't tap for any colors on their own.

B) No, it doesn't have flashback. It's not terrible though, so it could possible go in the sideboard. However, I would much prefer to use geistflame for this deck. The extra 2 damage per burning vengance is just way too good.

C) Mana Leak (and Flashfreeze in sideboard) are just strictly better. It's not a bad card, just has no real room to be played here.

D) You're not running black, so it would be hard to play. I would rather use a Metamorph, it's much better alternative. I'm honestly surprised he suggested image instead of metamorph. Probably has something to do with the casting cost.

E) Because you're casting enough red spells (with flashback, mind you) to ratchet it up more effectively that way. In a straight mono-red burn, that would be a perfect card but in this, you have other ways of making it bigger. Besides, it's sideboard. It's brought in on matchups where it can't be messed with all that much.

I built the deck on ChannelFireball.com, and it came out to $88.



There's your problem, it's like you're actively trying to find ways to critisize him. $88 is WAY higher than it really is. The $61 is closer to accurate but still a little high. JVL's list, if I bargan shopped, I could probably get for about $55

But as I said earlier in this post, I would subsitute the images for metamorphs. They're about half the price of images, so that lowers the price to somewhere around $48. I substitute the harder to find chandra with a devils play (As JVL suggested) and I find the whole deck is, on a rough estimate, somewhere around $40. Would you look at that. I'm half of your quoted price and well within your definition of "budget". You say you don't want to netdeck his lists but you also don't seem to want to put in the time to make his list more accomidating to your particular budget. It literally only took me about 15 minutes to make those changes.
Budget check:

12x Island = $0
10x Mountain = $0
1x Shimmering Grotto $0.05 = $0

4x Chandra's Phoenix $3.80 = $15

4x Burning Vengeance $0.03 = $0
4x Desperate Ravings $0.03 = $0
4x Dissipate $0.25 = $1
4x Geistflame $0.02 = $0
4x Incinerate $0.05 = $0
4x Mana Leak $0.25 = $1
3x Rolling Temblor $0.03 = $0
1x Silent Departure = $0
1x Slagstorm = $2
4x Think Twice = $0

1x Chandra the Firebrand = $9

3x Ancient Grudge $0.02 = $0
3x Flashfreeze $0.03 = $0
3x Phantasmal Image $9 = $27
4x Shrine of Burning Rage $1.50 = $6

Total cost: $61




Heck, if you buy these on ebay, you could get this deck for around 30 bucks. How is that not budget? All you ragers seem like dumb kids...you arent supposed to buy the first toy you see(or cards). At least check the alternative areas (like ebay) where cards can be bought. And dont say you dont have an address.

Edit: I do agree that the Phyrexian Metamorph is a better pick than the image and more "budget" 
A few things to say.

Last week, a lot of readers were upset about the difficulty of acquiring some of the cards in my Modern Heartless Summoning deck. This week, I'm going to make sure the deck I write about is especially easy to acquire.

I built the deck on ChannelFireball.com, and it came out to $88. Yes, that's better than you've been doing lately, but if that's your idea of "especially easy to acquire" then I think you need to step down from this position, right now.


Let's be fair now.  That price obviously includes some minimum price for each common, which you can easily get for free by asking around any shop.  "Can you hook me up with a spare Incinerate? Thanks man! Next........"

Your money is going to come down to the following:
4 Chandra's Phoenix - The only truly difficult to aquire card
1 Slagstorm(which he suggested a replacement for that is practically free)
1 Chandra, the Firebrand(which he suggested a replacement for that is much cheaper)
3 Phantasmal Image(there is really no alternative except to scoop to anyone with a Thrun)
4 Burning Vengeance - Maybe 50 cents each?
I ve seen a number of articles with people extolling genuinely cheap decks, and what comments do they draw? One about how badly the deck sucks! Worse, when Wizards do make genuinely cheaper decks viable, everyone rages on them for being too frequently played! Just look at Jund/Affinity! I can remember last standard season being a sea of red decks just because of how powerful it was at relatively low cost, and that wasn't exactly well-liked in all quarters. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

As pointed out previously, by adopting the "New World Order", Wizards have made a decision, conciously or unconciously, to concentrate most of the competitive cards at higher rarities, making cheap decks that don't just get you crushed by full-power decks a thing of the past. This makes FNM and other relatively casual store-run events naturally hostile for people who have very strict budget controls.

Yes, BoaB in previous incarnations hit cheaper decks more often. But those were cheaper times in general. There were more viable picks at common/uncommon, and not just the counterspells/burn spells that you see today.

Making any column that has "budget" somewhere in its premise is a losing proposition. People's definitions, expectations, experiences and situations are simply too diverse and divergent. JVL is trying to give you a fighting chance in an enviroment that is very different from when he began BoaB, let alone it's previous incarnations; that chance will cost you. If you don't like it, there are 2 casual colemns (Casual Fun and From the Lab) that can cater for you, as tournament play is clearly no longer for you. Complain to Wizards about their games design issues, not JVL.

--------------------

This weeks BoaB deck seems pretty solid, given it's restrictions. I think Devil's Play should be on there anyway, as its a fine win-con for this deck, especially without Snapcaster. Indeed, without Snapcaster and cards like Devil's Play, you're very hard-pressed to win without Vengeance, which non-budget versions don't need to fear so much.
As a frequent critic of JvL, I have to say that this week apears to be a step in the right direction.  I think he can do better, especially with more emphasis on the "building" portion of the column, but at this point, any improvement is a good sign.

Here's hoping that this isn't just a one-time thing!
I built the deck on ChannelFireball.com, and it came out to $88. Yes, that's better than you've been doing lately, but if that's your idea of "especially easy to acquire" then I think you need to step down from this position, right now.

But more importantly, you're missing the point. Most of the feedback last week wasn't about that specific deck. It was the fact that all of the decks you've been building lately have been rather expensive, almost exclusively over $100 for the last couple of months. This is not a column about building whatever you want; this is a column about building decks that people without $100+ to drop on a deck can afford to take to an FNM.
Many suggestions have been put forth, and you've only taken one of them, and the easiest one at that: Suggesting alternatives, without actually changing your decklist. I'm glad you're reading the feedback, but please do more than read it: listen to it.
Set a budget, even if it's $100 (most people, me included, would prefer $50, judging by the feedback). Then do everything you can do to make sure your decklist isn't more expensive than that budget.
Sure, occasionally you could build a deck that breaks that budget, I'm sure most people wouldn't mind too much, as long as it's the exception and not the rule. But to build decks where the cheapest you can muster is $88, in the Budget column, is folly. You're completely ignoring the low-end of budget. We need a spectrum. One week, build a $100 deck, then build a $30 deck next week. We don't need another column about placing winning as top priority; if that's what we want, we have Top Decks, with around 8 decks every week for us to copy.



Honestly, if you've been buying packs consistantly like MOST Magic players do, chances are you already own 80% of this deck. That said, in theory, if you absolutely HAD to buy every card, 88$ is a bit high and I think your estimate is off. You really need to save the trolling.

To add to the discussion, my biggest gripe with the deck is it's lack of synergay with it's namesake card. I won FNM the last two weeks with a creatureless BV build that has nothing but complete graveyard synergy. When BV is in play, I win fast. I think some of the card choices here are iffy. That said, I've been debating on running Shrine for a couple of weeks now and after reading this, it looks as though I may make that change. Good read JVL, ignore the haters.
So, I usually just read the article and peruse the postings about it, but I feel rather strongly that Jacob is getting a bad rap here. One usually picks a deck and works on improving it until one is bored, no? Even if one has zero cards, the first purchase of a deck one makes should last one quite a while. Do you guys have jobs, or even a part-time job? $61 or $88 or whatever is not that much considering the amount of entertainment that a good deck can supply. People spend $60 on ridiculous video games all the time. If you want to build a deck for $20, it's not going to stand a chance against anyone but your buddies aroudn the kitchen table who also spent $20 on their deck, that's just the reality.  



i think this weeks article is fine, the budget range is somewere between 55 till 85$ (judging by the posts here)
But i like to say something about your post,
you can buy most vediogames for about 40 till 50, if you try even better. When bf3 came out, a friend of mine got it for about 30$
so if magic has compitition from videogames, i think decks about $50 seems fine.
but like i said before, this weeks article is great on the budget part.
As a frequent critic of JvL, I have to say that this week apears to be a step in the right direction.  I think he can do better, especially with more emphasis on the "building" portion of the column, but at this point, any improvement is a good sign.

Here's hoping that this isn't just a one-time thing!



I agree. I still think there are some other things he could listen to (not trying to break Standard every week and going for stuff like pauper instead, using decks more than one column, more games, more building), but this was a good showing, overall.
76125763 wrote:
Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
Nice article. I am interested in trying the deck out for myself, since I already have most of the cards. 
i still like to know why there is a single Silent Departure
and maybe instead of Rolling Temblor Whipflare is a good option, depending on the number tempered steel and delver decks in your area
Another benefit for metamorphosis over p image is that it can be a second shrine on turn 3.
TwelfthTone: it is obvious you have never played with or against Snappy. He is everything this deck wants to do. He allows you to play less counterspells, he doesn't let the other play spells when you have four mana up and a leak in the yard, and he turns your necesary cards without flashback into a way to win. He is also a coral merfolk and can get a lot of damadge in against UB or Solar Flare



Well, in that case it does make sense to try and include the Snapcaster. However, I still stand by my observation that the deck functions fine without him. Is it more powerful if you include him? From what I've read in your comment and others, yes. But for the budget player, is it absolutely critical you have Snapcaster for the strategy to operate? No, it's not. I may not have played the deck with Snapcaster in it, but I've certainly played it without him, and the deck plays out fine. JVL's deck doesn't use Snapcaster, either, and is still competitive.

That said, if I decide to try and compete at a GP or PTQ, I'll definitely spring the cash for him. But since I'm not going to be doing either (just casual and FNM), then there's no real reason why I, or other budget-minded players, should pay for a card that the deck doesn't strictly "need."
Two cheap cards i would consider adding are devil's play which is at about $0.80 and past in flames which is at $3.60. Both of theses cards work great with burning vengence. Right now i don't think this deck is incredibly viable but when dark asscension comes out cards such as faithless looting and other cards with flashback should make this deck insane. Even if you decide to build it without a budget you don't need a playset of snapcaster mages. Patrick Chapin runs only 2 in his grixis build so you can probally build a non-budget version for under $110

Honestly, I'd like to say this: Great job JVL. This is much more budget, and a good deck. Now for the responses:


@t3m935t: Snappy is $20 a pop, if he put it, we'd all cry "Thats not budget!" Although yes, it is an excellent card

@Almost evryone: The silent departure is there for tempo and flashbacking

@chronego: A competive deck for only $88 bucks is budget. Heck, you should already have a copy or two of phan image, phoenix and slagstorm if you've ever built any competitive blue or red decks
Woot! Go RED! I love red! Red is awesome! Did I mention I love red?
those personality things
Suprisingly enough, in that test, I'm not red I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

Boss smileys: Come check out the Expanded Multiverse Project for great stories and a great community
quotes
56778328 wrote:
Why did you post it here? "Hey, all you guys who play this game! I'm not gonna play it!" "Umm... Ok, dude."
After last week, this is 100% better in respect to its budgetness. Thank you JVL. If you could make this a habit, not just a thing you do on rare occassion, I will be thoroughly satisfied. The only thing I noticed missing from the deck was Forbidden Alchemy which almost a staple in the archetype. Other than that, good article. Nice job.
On the topic of Treasure Mage: Hello planeswalkers. Look at your hand, now back to me, now back to your hand, now back to me. Sadly, your hand doesn't have a big game-winning bomb in it, but if you searched through your library for an artifact with converted mana cost of 6 or greater, you could get one. Look down, now back up, shuffle your library. Where are you? You're in a Magic game, and you're losing. What's that in your hand? It's a Wurmcoil Engine. Look again, the Wurmcoil Engine is now a ticket to Nagoya. Anything is possible when you cast Treasure Mage. I'm on a dragon. Currently Playing: U/R Burning Vengeance Control 10-2 http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/ur-burning-vengeance-2/
Including two decklists, one using the budget alternative cards and one using the optimal cards, may help appease more readers.

For example if it is noted that Chandra could be replaced by a Devil's Play, then the budget decklist would include Devil's Play instead of Chandra, and the optimal decklist would include Chandra. 

The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform.

I've gotta say it's kinda funny when people this week are saying to replace phantasmal image with phyrexian metamorph in order to make the deck more budget. Just two weeks ago, in the first Heartless Summoning article, there were numerous comments about JVL's use of metamorph in the deck, people calling it a non budget card. 

If your gonna say some cards aren't budget, at least be consistant about which ones are which.  
Allow me to clarify my complaint.

The deck is fine; it is well within range, pricewise, of the type of deck that belongs in this article. I'm not complaining about it because I don't consider it budget. My complaint is that he stated he was putting an effort into making this deck "especially easy to acquire", which would imply that this is the absolute low-end of what he considers a budget deck for this column.

Had he not made that claim, I'd be lauding him for finally building a deck that definitely belongs in this column. And yes, taking out some of his more expensive card choices and replacing them with cheaper alternatives drops the deck's cost pretty substantially. However, he claims this is "especially easy to acquire", while it's still over $50, as shown. Considering there is a range in what people consider budget, he needs to better represent the low end. Building a deck that costs somewhere around $65 (my price was admittedly high, as I checked them all from the same source, which isn't as cheap as picking them up on eBay for instance, though then you're paying more in shipping) and claiming it's "especially easy to acquire" implies that those of us who want the occasional $20 or $30 deck as a low-end are being entirely ignored.

And to those who claim it'd be impossible to build a deck that cheap that stands a chance: I have built a $15 deck that went 4-1 at every FNM I played with it. I currently have a $30 deck that is also quite competitive. It's not impossible to do. Having to build a competitive deck that cheaply every week, sure, that's a problem. But that's not what I'm asking him to do. He can still build $100 decks with the goal to be highly competitive (though preferably not nearly as often as he does now); I'm just asking that he also build $50 decks sometimes, and occasionally a $20 or $30 deck. Cater to the entire spectrum, instead of just the top end.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)
I see. thank you for the clarification
Woot! Go RED! I love red! Red is awesome! Did I mention I love red?
those personality things
Suprisingly enough, in that test, I'm not red I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

Boss smileys: Come check out the Expanded Multiverse Project for great stories and a great community
quotes
56778328 wrote:
Why did you post it here? "Hey, all you guys who play this game! I'm not gonna play it!" "Umm... Ok, dude."

I gotta laugh at the folks in the beginning throwing a hissy fit over the price of the deck. First, whatever pricing you are using is waaaaaay off. Second, and this is the most important part, the phantasmal images in the sideboard is the bulk of the price and aren't even a good sideboard card. Just take those out.


I made a mostly similar deck, with the 4 dual lands, swapping phoenixes with delvers, and throwing in a 2nd Chandra... $30. If anything I added to the deck and still came out $50 less than what some people were valuing this deck. If you refuse to look for better prices on cards, then you aren't a budget player to begin with.

I think it would be a better idea if, instead of saying "here's the expensive version, you can swap out for these cards to make it cheaper", he could start with the cheap version and suggest cards to make it better. Doing things the former way sets people up for failure. "Oh, you can't afford everything right now? I guess you could just toss in this, or something. It'll be worse though."

It's much better to say "Here's a deck that will perform pretty well. If you want to make it even better, here are some suggestions", because you're not implying that the more affordable version is bad, you're implying that the expensive version is better.
As long as we're doing deck revisits, how about a revisit of the Splinterfright deck? I'd build that if I had a better list than the one I've got now. (Thought: wouldn't Lead the Stampede be a better card than ponder in his original list?)
Budget check:

12x Island = $0
10x Mountain = $0
1x Shimmering Grotto $0.05 = $0

4x Chandra's Phoenix $3.80 = $15

4x Burning Vengeance $0.03 = $0
4x Desperate Ravings $0.03 = $0
4x Dissipate $0.25 = $1
4x Geistflame $0.02 = $0
4x Incinerate $0.05 = $0
4x Mana Leak $0.25 = $1
3x Rolling Temblor $0.03 = $0
1x Silent Departure = $0
1x Slagstorm = $2
4x Think Twice = $0

1x Chandra, the Firebrand = $9

3x Ancient Grudge $0.02 = $0
3x Flashfreeze $0.03 = $0
3x Phantasmal Image $9 = $27
4x Shrine of Burning Rage $1.50 = $6


Total cost: $61



 You can easily use Phyrexian Metamorph instead of the Phantasmal Image , which is $3.40 a piece ($14.00 total), that will bring it down to $48.00 and, if you use Devil's Play ($0.45) instead of Chandra, The Firebrand ($9.00), that will bring it down to $40.00, which is a nice budget, considering is a good deck. Might not get you to the worlds finals but will let you have a lot of fun, win a bunch of matchs and enjoy yourself. 



I gotta laugh at the folks in the beginning throwing a hissy fit over the price of the deck. First, whatever pricing you are using is waaaaaay off. Second, and this is the most important part, the phantasmal images in the sideboard is the bulk of the price and aren't even a good sideboard card. Just take those out.




I made a mostly similar deck, with the 4 dual lands, swapping phoenixes with delvers, and throwing in a 2nd Chandra... $30. If anything I added to the deck and still came out $50 less than what some people were valuing this deck. If you refuse to look for better prices on cards, then you aren't a budget player to begin with.


 

 You have a very good point there. Like the dude on the first page that set the price list at $80.00. I mean, really? With all the original cards when I researched came down do $63.00. And I'm sure you can get even better prices. With some good research it can come down do $45.00 easily. But again, is easier to just complain instead of make stuff happens...
 

 
 Now, about the column. Well, I like the way JVL runs it. Might not always be on the low budget, but he always give competitive sugestions for a modest price (that considering that you want to win, not just have a bunch of mixed cards in a pile). Also, let's think that if you want to buy every single deck that he makes, no matter how much on a budget it is, you will have problems. Not because the decks are always expensive, but because there is too many of them. Also, he has to deal with all these different players that wants to play on different formats. Is easy for us to sit and complain, but wearing his shoes for sure is not pleasant. Well, I like his line of work, but I understand that some new players won't have $100 to start, hence why he makes decks like this. If a new player is complaining about spending $40.00 on a "competitive" deck, then he chose the wrong game to play. Anyway, I though the deck this week was awesome and very low budget, hope he can keep it up.

  Take care, 
 Machado, Christopher.

If you cut the spending, I would increase what you spend then by getting the UR land, the ease of playing cards matters so much when playing combo.

When players ask me about returning to the game I actually point them to the event decks.  For what they spend, it is the easiest way to get into the game without explaining too much.  I think this was a solid move by wizards. 
Thank you for finally listening JVL. This is what I was hoping for. Though you play with the high priced deck, you still provide the information for cheaper versions. If this is your planned format for future articles, I will not be one of the one's critisizing!

I'm very happy BoaB has returned Budget! 
MaRo: One of the classic R&D stories happened during a Scars of Mirrodin draft. Erik Lauer was sitting to my right (meaning that he passed to me in the first and third packs). At the end of the draft, Erik was upset because I was in his colors (black-green). He said, "Didn't you see the signals? I went into black-green in pack one." I replied, "Didn't you see my signals? I started drafting infect six drafts ago." ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** MaRo: During a playtest, I played a Reaper from the Abyss. I attacked each turn, while my opponent would chump block (he had a lot of fliers), and then I killed a second creature. This happened until he had only one creature left. I attack, he blocked, and then the following dialogue occurred: Him: Kill your demon. Me: What? Him: My guy died so you have to kill a creature. Me: Yeah, but why would a demon kill himself? Him: I don't know. He's depressed there's no one left to kill. Me: That doesn't make any sense. Him: I don't care. It's what the card says. I then take out my pen, and wrote "non-Demon" on it. Him: You can't do that. Me: I redesigned him while the effect was on the stack.