Community

Nov 2, 2011 -- 11:02AM, deth2munkies wrote:

Nov 2, 2011 -- 9:58AM, raadface wrote:

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

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.  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. 

yea exactly, i think he posts those lands in the list just to show what the deck would be optimally if one could afford it, and looking back i would have to agree that it isn't a super new decklist or anything, but i feel it's alright on account that some people may not be exposed to the deck yet and i just like hearing the reasons behind choices as well as what works best or how games play it. Also i've been looking to making a UR modern deck so im happy to see this. I guess he could have treaded a little more new area, by exploring or discussing Past in Flames other than just mentioning it, or even Pyromancer Ascension's potential

and to agree with JVL originial article, serum visions and sleight of hand are definitley lackluster compared to ponder and preordain, its almost like you just feel bad playing with them, knowing how much better ponder and preordain are lol

Nov 2, 2011 -- 9:09PM, 12three45 wrote:

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.

Nov 2, 2011 -- 10:52PM, chronego wrote:

Nov 2, 2011 -- 9:09PM, 12three45 wrote:

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.

Point 1: Budget is relative in Magic. If I go to Gordon Ramsay's restaurant, then I shouldn't expect to get out of there cheap. If I go to a modern tournament, I shouldn't expect to be competitive for less than in standard. If you are going to pay an entry fee to play modern, you shouldn't throw it away. The deck has to be competitive enough to suggest your money wasn't wasted. For modern, the deck is going to cost something.

Point 2: If you are on combo, by turn 4 is where you must win. The stated goals of the format mean that is what the speed of the game is. You cannot slow the deck down with ineffective lands. Terramorphic expanse does not get dual lands, and they come into play tapped. You have to have an untapped land capable of letting you play all your spells as soon as you make your land drop, or you will not be winning turn 4. I think JVL did a good job making the mana base as cheap as possible while making the deck work.

SCG ran a very good budget column for many years by Chris Romeo. He basically based the series on the opposite of your argument. He said invest in real estate. Once you have that, you have the options to play tons of other cheap cards. Had you picked up scalding tarns, which have been a very popular card in this series, you could have played them in many, many decks suggested by the author. If you go and get grave titans instead, your options for decks are significantly lower-especially for eternal play.

If you are a budget player, Modern may not really be for you. If you are interested in playing the Modern PTQ season without having to get a lot of cards that shot up in value after Modern was announced, this article might be a decent place to start. You've also got a few months to find the cards. Other forum posters are suggesting this stragety may still be strong enough that further bannings are needed. That is pretty good for a deck this cheap. It would be a great disservice to readers to put an article out there about a Modern deck that is going to get crushed. If you are pinching pennies, then that entry fee evaporates when you register a non-competitive deck, and that entry fee could have been used to acquire better cards.