|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 4:25PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2008
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Building on a Budget, which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 9:11PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2011
|
No. This is not budget. The 4x Gravecrawler and 4x Messenger take it out of budget. Budget for whole deck is $54.89 low end, $74.77 midrange and $114.92 high end on TCGplayer.
Add in the fact that it's unoriginal, and you've got a bad BoaB deck.
I'm ususally the one defending him, too.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 9:45PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2011
|
What was Ornithopter doing in the opponent's deck?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 9:59PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2005
|
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree on this one. The core pieces would price about 70 or so in my local area, and while that is 'technically' budget friendly, it also assumes that all the commons/uncommons were obtained in drafts, generally.
I don't see any real reason that this deck just decided not to pretend to be a budget deck, and add the BSZ's that are needed to handle the Delver and token Matchups.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 10:50PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
On these articles I'd recommend talking through a couple alternative ways to go with the deck, so your audience can flow better with what they already have. Maybe somebody already has Drowned Catacombs, and you could mention the obvious blue splash for Diregraf Captains & Mana Leaks, or go Red for burn / sac. outlets like some of the Bx PT decks from a couple weeks ago.
And yeah, budget is questionable. Gravecrawlers are still 7-8 at shops, and Messengers are around 5. So that's not toooo bad on paper, but Online this is pretty rough, since those guys were just released and are both going for 8-10 apiece as of this post. Considering how much of your audience is on modo, that's kind of a bust. Maybe this would have been a better deck for a month or two from now, after the release prices come down.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:09AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2003
|
This column really needs to give alternatives. Discuss money cards that could potentially be added or which cards could replace the rather expensive rares that are in it now (though I doubt those are available).
Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:23AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2003
|
Instead of just posting what you see as flaws, how about suggesting a cheaper alternative list that functions equally well, or better? If you can do that then you may have something. I've tried playing cheaper decks in Standard wthout any high dollar value cards (e.g. U/W Humans w/o Hero of Bladehold or Geist of St. Traft, U/R w/o Stromkirk Noble, etc.), and they tend not to do very well. I'm not saying it's impossible, just very difficult.
Other than the Messengers and Gravecrawlers, this is a very cheap deck. But let's face it, if you're playing Zombies without Messengers and Gravecrawlers in Standard, you're playing sub-par Zombies. It does seem likely that the deck could be better with a Blue splash. But then it needs some sort of dual land, because you need every land to produce black mana for the Messengers to be good. So that adds a minimum of about $20 to the deck right there (and that's assuming Drowned Catacomb is the land being used).
My opinion is that we should cut Jacob some slack here. The definition of 'budget' has to be a much higher dollar/ticket value than it was a few years ago, due to singles prices going through the roof in recent years, especially for paper cards. I think he's doing the best he can with a very difficult column. It's Building on a Budget, not 'Building Dirt Cheap and Terrible' or 'Building for the Pro Tour' so there have to be some compromises made.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 22, 2012 - 1:27AM
#8
|
|
|
Both the Messenger and Gravecrawler are among the 10 most expensive Dark Ascension cards on MTGO, so aren't those the kind of cards to generally avoid in a BoaB column? Yes, you can define 'budget' any way you like, but you could just as well define it as anything but Huntmaster of the Fells or Sorin, Lord of Innistrad (as long as we're talking Dark Ascension). Not very restrictive.
I can understand that he wanted to build a competitive deck featuring an undying card, but why pick the single most expensive undying card? There are plenty of others for microfractions of the price, and they could still be cornerstones of competitive decks. The answer probably is because he loves zombies. And that's part of my problem with this article - I do too, and my favorite deck has just been made even more expensive before I've had the chance to put it together!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 22, 2012 - 5:26AM
#9
|
|
|
What about the glaring omission of Skirsdag High Priest? With all of the morbid being activated in this deck, seeing a turn 3 5/5 flying demon is not out of the question. I'm not sure many decks have a good answer for that, save for a morbid Brimstone Volley or Oblivion Ring. Even then, it's a token demon, and one that could easily be made over and over again in a deck like this.
Then again, you could just go watch the deck tech video from PT DKA and see that exact deck. Splashing red for Kuldotha Rebirth means easily having enough guys to tap/sacrafice again.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 22, 2012 - 5:32AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
sure you just topdecked the singleton Gruesome Discovery just in time to save you
|
|
|