I support BoaB decision to define "budget" as "cheap compared to other competitive decks in the format" and not as an arbitrary $ limit. The goal is to win tournaments, not to make casual decks. If the deck is too expensive for you, complain to Wizards for making Standard too expensive.
That being said, mono-black Infect is fairly straightforward so today's column didn't teach me much. Looking forward to next week's more creative brew.
It's nice to finally get a response to the feedback we've been giving for ages, but "it can't be done" is a bit of a weak response. Just give a possible replacement for each rare or expensive card. It doesn't have to be as strong, it just has to fill the same role. That way, people can decide for themselves what they do and how much they buy.
I can understand this sentiment, but there are some cards in Standard that simply can't be replaced. What would fill the slot of Inkmoth Nexus in this deck? I've seen some pretty budget control or UR decks based, but even they break the "budget" because they call for Snapcaster Mage, and there's simply no other card that can replace Snapcaster.
Basically the column is just a notice board for more rogue decks. They're good, better depending on the pilot, and they aren't as expensive because (obviously) they're not the best, by definition.
It just doesn't interest me all that much. I can check the rogue decks out any time I want on Magic Online's Deck of the Week feature. I can type in whatever card is central to any of the obvious rogue ideas and find a few hits per page, and there's 20 pages.
Anyway, I think the article would receive more clout for being innovative. I don't mean you have to break the format every week, but you could at least try stuff that's unheard of. Spider Spawning, Undead Alchemist, Black Weenie aggro, Big Red, Past in Flames, Mirror Mad Maniac.dek, garaging the Event Decks, some random BR Control stuff you had an idea about from a draft, etc.
It's stuff like that that the memberbase is looking into. We check out certain cards and we just wish so hard there was a way to play it with justice at an FNM, but we're either like many of us who don't know where to start, or we're like me and simply don't have the time to mess with every single cool idea I've thought about or talked about at locals.
But you do have time for that. I think you'd catch a lot less heat if you tried to hit some more of the fun ideas lurking in T2 that nobody tries because it doesn't run 4 Snapcaster or it runs Inexorable Tide, stuff like that. As a player, you'll get the challenge of finding a good angle for a deck. As a fried, you'll get to see the hope and excitement from players who didn't think it could be done (like how Serious Fun goes down on a weekly basis). And as deckmaker, you'll get some respect for thinking outside the box constantly.
Anyway, rant is just for future suggestions. Take some more chances with your deck ideas. You already do so sometimes, why not make it all the time?
Hi im pretty not happy from this article this week you take a infect deck with it a optimal to downgrade him and say hey its a budget deck. i begin to say im going to read other article due that you downgrade a archetype for a budget one , we don't want that we want a deck with a card that nobody see hes true power and put in into a restricted amount of buget that what we want read not a deck you downgrade. some of your idea you make like (curse of stalked prey, phyrexian suicide) was a true built cost nothing to make and get a good ratio about win and lose
Anyway, I think the article would receive more clout for being innovative. I don't mean you have to break the format every week, but you could at least try stuff that's unheard of. Spider Spawning, Undead Alchemist, Black Weenie aggro, Big Red, Past in Flames, Mirror Mad Maniac.dek, garaging the Event Decks, some random BR Control stuff you had an idea about from a draft, etc.
It's stuff like that that the memberbase is looking into. We check out certain cards and we just wish so hard there was a way to play it with justice at an FNM, but we're either like many of us who don't know where to start, or we're like me and simply don't have the time to mess with every single cool idea I've thought about or talked about at locals.
But you do have time for that. I think you'd catch a lot less heat if you tried to hit some more of the fun ideas lurking in T2 that nobody tries because it doesn't run 4 Snapcaster or it runs Inexorable Tide, stuff like that. As a player, you'll get the challenge of finding a good angle for a deck. As a fried, you'll get to see the hope and excitement from players who didn't think it could be done (like how Serious Fun goes down on a weekly basis). And as deckmaker, you'll get some respect for thinking outside the box constantly.
Anyway, rant is just for future suggestions. Take some more chances with your deck ideas. You already do so sometimes, why not make it all the time?
Why doesn't he do that? Because he is competitive. His Spike-ness defines him as a player. Trying original stuff like what you suggest inevitably leads to mostly decks that lose more games than they win when facing the metagame decks, and in Jacob's view of deckbuilding and Magic, this is unacceptable. If he adopted such a process, maybe once a year, if very lucky, he could find a truly competitive, truly budget, AND truly rogue deck, but that's wishful thinking.
Past incarnations of BOAB were about semi-competitive decks for playing in casual circles, which was fine in its own right, and I admit, more entertaining to read. That style fit the previous columnists. But Jacob Van Lunen, a Pro Tour competitor, does not want to stomp noobs who play unpolished decks in the casual room, and he does not show up in the competitive room with something he has no confidence in. That's not the kind of player he is.
In my view, the column shifted from something entertaining to something useful for tournament competitors. I can see room for both of those things on this site. Keeping the same column name was the true mistake, because the content has become something completely different, and saying it's the same column when it really isn't could not help but provoking comparisons for years on end.
Magic The Gathering DCI Rules Advisor Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
1st thing I'd like to mention is that this deck as it stands currently is not what I personally would consider budget. It is considered budget when you consider that this deck is ~$100 as it stands, and most of the rest of the decks in the format are $300+
That being said, its not terribly hard to modify this deck to be ~$50 or so, which i think is pretty dang good, while still being competative. Taking out the inkmoths alone gets you down to about that level. The deck still works without the inkmoths, its just one more way to win. You've still got plenty of evasive infect guys to swing in.
There are almost always alternatives to make tier 1 decks budget friendly. some are much easier and more effective than others.
And while we're on the budget discussion, the most important part of playing on a budget is determining how and where to invest your $$. Inkmoths are super important to the meta right now, so why not go on ebay (or wherever) and buy the Rot from Within event deck? They are running around $18 (~ the price for an inkmoth) and you get an inkmoth, green sun's zenith, and a few other rares (not to mention Melira, which shuts down mono b infect).
if you want to mirran crusaders, why not pick up 2 of the Hold the Line event decks? You're then sitting quite well with 4 crusaders, 8 oblivion rings, 2 champions, 2 inquisitors, 2 nevermores. Honestly you're retarted setup for a solid white deck there, with ~$40 investment. or you have solid trades for more of what you want.
Its all about finding ways to make every $ you spend count.
Past incarnations of BOAB were about semi-competitive decks for playing in casual circles, which was fine in its own right, and I admit, more entertaining to read. That style fit the previous columnists. But Jacob Van Lunen, a Pro Tour competitor, does not want to stomp noobs who play unpolished decks in the casual room, and he does not show up in the competitive room with something he has no confidence in. That's not the kind of player he is.
In my view, the column shifted from something entertaining to something useful for tournament competitors. I can see room for both of those things on this site. Keeping the same column name was the true mistake, because the content has become something completely different, and saying it's the same column when it really isn't could not help but provoking comparisons for years on end.
Hear that? That's the sound of the nail being hit right on the head.
I've been reading BoaB for years, and to be frank, what Jacob Van Lunen has been doing is not really true to the spirit of the column. Making a tournament deck with sub-optimal parts (some still expensive) has never been what this column is about. Neither is justifying their inclusion by saying that they make the deck competitive. My favorite BoaB articles were from the Ben Bleiweiss era, where he experimented with largely overlooked rares, formulating fun casual decks with truly inexpensive engines. In fact, if you look at some of the old columns, you'll see that Ben even ruled out cards that were too expensive, truly keeping to a set budget even at the expense of the deck's effectiveness. While he noted what cards would be optimal in the event that a reader wanted to bling out their budget deck, he never actually used them for the column's playtests. While budget is indeed subjective, Jacob Van Lunen's shifting goalposts of "whatever will make this constructed-viable" make it far too easy just to build expensive, effective decks, which has never been what this column was about. If you want to keep doing that (which there is definitely an audience for), change the column's name to something else.
Beyond the content, let's compare the column structure itself. Ben Bleiweiss columns were often quite wordy, per his writing style, and showed real idea progression. The decks evolved over multiple playtests against different players, including some true casuals who you'd never see on Pro Tours, often resulting in complete overhauls of a deck's engine, and sudden epiphanies. The games were explained, and you got a real sense of what it was like to play these games against random opponents, as well as the general flow and effectiveness of key cards in different matchups. One great example is the article about Dissension's Hellbent precon, which Ben modified, ultimately learning through various casual games that it worked better without the mechanic at all. I got a real sense of the deckbuilding process by seeing the idea, then the supporting cards, and then the sideboarding and substitutions in reaction to different field tests.
Here, there are two games against one opponent, prefaced with:
I've played a lot of matches with this deck, but I'd like to share how it plays against Green-White tokens because that's the most commonly played deck on Magic Online.
I know that it's more work to actually explain what happened in those other games, as well as sideboarding and fine-tuning. But writing a column is work - you get paid to put forth the effort. Falling victim to The Matrix: Reloaded's formula of "explain, don't show" is just poor narrative, and extremely unengaging to read. Furthermore, it offers no real context and insight into how consistent the deck plays, nor into possible areas for improvement. Just hastily writing it up with:
This deck performs incredibly well against green Wolf Run decks, red decks, token-based strategies, and the mirror. The deck has trouble with Birthing Pod decks, Blue-Black Control, and some Solar Flare variants.
is neither insightful, nor educational as we are presented with no evidence of this statement. It's not even a theory, it's a statement.
Now don't get me wrong - this is not to say Jacob Van Lunen is not a fantastic Magic player. This is not to say he's a terrible writer. And not to say there is no value in what he does, because there is. I'm just a longtime fan of the game, the column, and true budget decks calling for a change. The direction this column is headed is not true to the spirit of BoaB, and should no longer be called Building on a Budget. If Wizards wants to keep this column going, it needs a true pioneer who can make the most out of $0.99 rares, with fresh ideas and the willingness to spend extra time showing how a deck works, rather than just telling you it does. There's room for what Jacob Van Lunen does here, but this column is not a good fit for it. Refer to the quote from earlier in the post - just change the name, or get someone else to take over BoaB.
I agree and said as much in previous feedback for this article. This is still a good article and while Jacob's style is minimalist, there are advantages to that. He is straight to the point and he brings us some excellent decks.
The issue is the column he is writing is basically 'Going rogue', not 'BoaB'.
I too enjoyed the Bleiwiss era, mostly because Bleiwiss came in knowing that JMS was an incredibly hard act to follow and he really WORKED to win us over. It made him very likeable and it got me very invested in the decks. While he didn't do exactly the same stuff as JMS there was a clear thread between them and they set the tone for BoaB.
Jacob doesn't follow this tone at all, let's be real here. He doesn't want to build budget casual decks. He wants to highlight less expensive rogue standard decks. Stuff you can win tournaments with without killing yourself financially. Rogue decks are, by their very nature, going to be cheaper, because the cards are less in demand. Honestly the fact these decks are comparatively budget strikes me as a coincidence stemming from their rogue nature, not what the author is actually interested in.
Good article but it isn't BoaB, it has actually tended more away from the BoaB spirit over time not towards it (as some hoped it would). Could we please get the old BoaB back too? It was always very popular you know. People loved reading the reports of the games and getting invested in the slowly evolving decks. They loved providing suggestions for more obscure budget cards to go in.
I agree it is time to assess what this article is trying to be.
Building on a Budget is clearly a misnomer. Subjective is one thing, but it dilutes the integrity of the column when the only cards which are excluded are, say, the 20 or so most expensive cards in the format, which I feel is kind of where the article now sits. There are 1041 cards in standard, according to Gatherer, a number which will rise. Building a deck using 'only' 1021 of those cards is not really putting any meaningful limitations on what you can build with.
However, there is definitely something rogue-ish about the column that appeals, and 'Rogue Decks' I think is a column that would get a lot of traffic.
Is there space for a $5-per-card-limit 'budget' deck column out as well? Perhaps, but regardless I think it is time to decide which column Jacob's column needs to be because I think he has something that appeals to deck builders but which is falling between two stools in its current incarnation.
By the way, I think it is a sad inditement of Modern Magic that the current author of building on a budget feels that it is no longer viable to do so without using expensive cards as well.
