Community

The deck is neat! Like the idea... And yes, gotta borrow Wurmcoil Engine from a friend, and a bunch of other cards from other friend, but it's manageable.

Dec 7, 2011 -- 8:39AM, 12three45 wrote:

Dec 7, 2011 -- 7:43AM, Blackbird71 wrote:

Dec 7, 2011 -- 3:43AM, FrakTheGods wrote:

Dec 7, 2011 -- 2:46AM, Tyraei wrote:

I have to agree with CiulineIhmenjo. There isn´t anything "budget" about a deck with 3 Wurmcoil Engines, 4 Darkslick Shores and lots of other stuff that costs around a ticket/piece :/

I liked BoaB more when it had the ~20 Tickets restriction. 

Actually I kinda have to disagree mainly cause this is Modern we are talking about, where it's a format defined by a 600-800 dollar deck. This deck is pretty budget IMO when compared to that.

That's the question though - does a deck designed for the Modern format really belong in a Building on a Budget article?  It seems that it would be impossible to make a deck for this format truly budget friendly (just having a lower cost than other incredibly expensive decks does not qualify as "budget").

What do you think budget means? There are budget cars. They still cost thousands of dollars. There are budget tiers of cars that can put the budget option at nearly $100K. If I want a car that can go 0-60 in under 3.0 s, I can get a Nissan GT-R that is less than $100K that fits that, and is actually faster than the $160K+ sub 3.0s Porche and the $1.8Million+ Bugatti Veyron Super Sport for the first 100 feet.

If I want to play Modern, it isn't going to happen on the Kia budget. Your budget cannot be one deck for less than half of one tarmagoyf and reasonably expect to see any part of your entry fee back. It is nice to know what the Nissan GT-R options might look like. Personally, I would have liked to know if Urborg is important so Grove of the Burnwillows can be killed. 

At any rate, Jacob asked the readers if they wanted to see his efforts on this deck in a previous article. Apparently, there were enough yes responses that he gave his readers what they wanted to see.    

You're making flawed comparisons, playing with semantics, and just being willingly obtuse.  Budget means that there is a set limit for what one can spend; unlike many of his predecessors, JVL has never set a budget amount for his decks.

More specifically to this column, budget decks have traditionally been inexpensive (different than "less expensive") decks that are easy to put together, and can perform decently during casual or light competitive (read:  FNM) play.  They are rarely format-breaking, and should not be expected to win high level tournaments (at least not regularly), but are more of an entry-level deck for newer players or those who just don't like to or can't shell out large amounts of cash every couple of months for a new deck.

I would submit that the Modern format, like Legacy and Vintage, is inherently budget-unfriendly, and in general is not appropriate subject material for BoaB.  Maybe JVL will prove me wrong and come up with a true budget Modern deck, but since he rarely seems to be able to do that in Standard, I won't hold my breath.  If a Modern deck is so highly requested, then perhaps a Modern-specific column or feature is in order for this site, but from what I've seen, it doesn't belong here.

I like the deck and if it doesn't cost me too much to acquire the few cards I don't have already then I'm looking forward to tossing this together and giving it a go.  When Modern first came to MODO the first deck I built was a Master Transmuter deck, so this deck obviously appeals to me.

On the topic of Budget/non-Budget, I'm afraid as much as I like JVL's writing and his deck building, I have to agree with the complaints that the decks aren't "budget".  IMO this article series is suffering from an identity crisis.  When BoaB used to be focused on sticking to a strict Budget, the article's title made sense and people appreciated the effort.  Since JVL took over the column, the truth is that Budget isn't really what he's writing about.  JVL is writing about designing/building ROGUE decks.  By their nature Rogue decks tend to be "budget friendly" (as cards cost more because they are tier1), but they aren't really "budget".  You can tell by JVL's approach to deck building that designing a viable deck for the metagame is more important to him than adhereing strictly to some budget.  As proof of this, look at all the times he posts a decklist and then as an aside offers ways to skimp on the price.  Someone who is focused on the budget would do the opposite, that is they would post the budget list and then suggest ways to "power it up". 

So JVL is interested in rogue deck building, and NOT building on a budget.  Which is a fine concept and plenty of readers enjoy that style.  The problem is that the article series title is misleading.  The content manager of the website should SERIOUSLY consider rebranding the article.  The writing is good, but there is a lot of (justifiable) frustration by a large portion of the readers because the articles they get are not what they think is being advertised.  The emphasis of JVL's decks is not budget, the budget concerns just feel like an afterthought.  The article series should be called something like "Rogue Agent", or "Confessions of a non-conformist" or some such similar sentiment.  Then readers wouldn't feel mislead by the contents of the articles (which IMO is pretty high quality).

Dec 7, 2011 -- 3:43AM, FrakTheGods wrote:

Dec 7, 2011 -- 2:46AM, Tyraei wrote:

I have to agree with CiulineIhmenjo. There isn´t anything "budget" about a deck with 3 Wurmcoil Engines, 4 Darkslick Shores and lots of other stuff that costs around a ticket/piece :/

I liked BoaB more when it had the ~20 Tickets restriction. 

Actually I kinda have to disagree mainly cause this is Modern we are talking about, where it's a format defined by a 600-800 dollar deck. This deck is pretty budget IMO when compared to that.

what a load of crap.
if i can spent 50$ a month, how much does it matter that the tier one decks are 800$, if they are 200$ i still have 50$ a month and i still will not be able to call 100$ decks budget.

Dec 7, 2011 -- 4:57AM, Silex_Flint wrote:

Dec 7, 2011 -- 2:46AM, Tyraei wrote:

I have to agree with CiulineIhmenjo. There isn´t anything "budget" about a deck with 3 Wurmcoil Engines, 4 Darkslick Shores and lots of other stuff that costs around a ticket/piece :/

I liked BoaB more when it had the ~20 Tickets restriction. 

Just run drowned catacombs instead of shores, there's no 1 drop spells in the deck that you need to cast on turn 1 anyway. Perhaps if wurmcoil engine is too expensive play Blightsteel Colossus instead.

i agree with this, but i think JVL should have build the cheaper version and made suggestions for adding money to the deck, since it is called building on a budget,
now he didnt even make suggestions for a budget build of the deck

Dec 7, 2011 -- 9:24AM, 12three45 wrote:

@Blackbird: Budget can mean many things. It can mean a firm amount of money. It can mean less expensive options, which is variable and relative to the other options. Other authors chose to go with a set amount of money. Jacob has chosen another definition. As far as I know, he's the only person writing about competitive decks while actively restricting the use of the best cards available to come up with a less expensive option.

Other authors have no problem telling you to you'll need 4x tarmagoyf for the sideboard.
www.channelfireball.com/articles/feature...


Others make videos about pauper.
www.channelfireball.com/articles/channel...
    
   
 

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/budge...

Please read this link and then tell me which definition you and JVL are using for this broad and open interpretation of "budget." 

In every definition except the first, a budget literally comes down to a specifically scheduled, allocated, or assigned amount of resources (for those who didn't read the link, the first definition is a leather wallet, but I don't think anyone would argue that this column has anything to do with animal hide pouches).  Claiming that it means something else does not make it so, and choosing a definition for it that is incorrect does not make you right.  It may be how JVL and others are using the word, but that just means that it is not being used properly.

The article is called "Building on a Budget" for a reason, yet JVL continues to fail to specify exactly what sort of budget he is building on.  Previous authors of this column had no trouble setting this limits for their builidng; so what is JVL's problem?