Community

Jan 5, 2011 -- 6:34AM, unspeakable2 wrote:

The irony of this column is that it is supposed to teach people how to build on a budget, when in fact what it does is provide another source for pre-made decks for the lazy masses who are uninterested in building their own decks.  I can't tell you how many times I've played against copies of the "building on a budget" deck in the casual rooms.  Once upon a time this column was intended to encourage creativity, but now it provides relatively inexpensive but powerful decks that help to further stifle creativity.

People learning to build creative individual budget decks is not in WotC’s interests. WotC’s profits are maximised when a maximum number of players are chasing the same few cards, as this requires more sets to be opened (one way or another) to meet the demand.

If the agenda of WotC was to encourage creativity and a broad range of different decks, they would not publish any deck lists. Unfortunately there will always be others who make a living selling singles willing to publish the winning decks as a form of advertising.

As soon as any good list is published it results in people who like the deck, can afford the deck and don’t have the desire to play something more expensive duplicating the deck. If sufficient numbers of people are chasing the same archetype, the key mythic (or rare) components will naturally rise in price.

The shamans deck looks particularly uncreative to me. Nine different 4-ofs + sparkmage. 33 shamans + 4 bloodbraids which will cascade into shamans. Not really a lot of room for customisation. Any change will either reduce the number of shamans (and the kinship the deck runs on) or put less optimal shamans in place. Even the bloodbraids are effectively 3/2 hastey body + random As to those complaining this deck isn't budget, all things are relative, aside from the fauna shamans, no card costs over £2.5, in an era where decks are running playsets of jace and/or primeval titan + fetches, that seems pretty budget to me.

I actually like the deck it's certainly a deviation from the norm, but I feel it could get stale very quickly due to it's linear nature.

Jan 5, 2011 -- 7:12AM, Jakusotsu wrote:

Jan 5, 2011 -- 6:34AM, unspeakable2 wrote:

Once upon a time this column was intended to encourage creativity, but now it provides relatively inexpensive but powerful decks that help to further stifle creativity.

Was it really? No matter which author did the column, dating back to Nate Heiss it always featured one decklist to "sleeve up" and play. The only exception I can remember were Ben Bleiweiss's lists of staple cards, which didn't happen all that often.

But you're right, the typical BoaB decks of yore didn't carry that much punch as Jake van Lunen strives to deliver.

Jay Moldenhauer-Salazar would also give lists of staple cards, decklists that were not the norm, and highlighted users who took a similar theme into a different direction. His style was more about showing what could be done, but noting his idea was not the only idea that could be persued. He repeatedly showed his ideas and the ideas of others. His House of Secrets deck was so evil, but so good, and highlighted how a color pair could be explored.

Jakes decks are a little more expensive, but, as Jayem74 mentioned, they are more budget than some decks. Not much can be done about the secondary market. My only gripe about this installment of Building on a Budget is the opponent who missed the fact Prismatic Omen made all lands all types. If the game was played on MODO, each land would show it was each basic land type, wouldn't it? Could this fact be missed so easily? It is a bad example of how the Shaman deck performs when played against an opponent who misses something so blatant.

I think I like the Elemental Mimic Vat deck better, but I love creatures with comes into play...er, enters the battlefield effects.