The writers should be professional enough to make sure whatever deck they are writing about is legal in the given format. this is just the usual sloppy writing Ive come to expect from JVL
The writers should be professional enough to make sure whatever deck they are writing about is legal in the given format. this is just the usual sloppy writing Ive come to expect from JVL
"(Modern) versions of Eminent Domain didn't have access to Ponder, but I'm sure they would have played it if they did." Really? Please check out next weeks article Why storm is not winning all the time. But hey, other than not being able to reliably find all of you pieces, this deck is passible. It's kinda like tron, except no one is expecting it.
"(Modern) versions of Eminent Domain didn't have access to Ponder, but I'm sure they would have played it if they did." Really? Please check out next weeks article Why storm is not winning all the time. But hey, other than not being able to reliably
Who was he playtesting against? A literal goldfish?
No, he doesn't playtest at all. He just makes up game scenarios.. referencing cards in the sideboard during game 1, referencing cards not even in the list, etc.
I really hate Jacob Van Lunen and his very obvious lack of effort when it comes to every single aspect of writing this column.It's incredibly insulting.Edit:No, he doesn't playtest at all. He just makes up game scenarios.. referencing cards in the s
I thought you really tested your decks on MOL, but since ponder is banned, seems pretty clear now you dont.
Iam feeling cheated, you articles are a fraud, your decks are bad, and you are a terrible professional.
I remember you put a firespout on a alara-zendikar standard deck once, so this is not the first time you do this kind of terrible mistake.
I wish we could have Ben Bleweiss back too...
This is outrageous.I thought you really tested your decks on MOL, but since ponder is banned, seems pretty clear now you dont.Iam feeling cheated, you articles are a fraud, your decks are bad, and you are a terrible professional.I remember you put a
This article erroneously lists Ponder as a legal card in the Modern format. I cannot excuse this oversight during editing and due to its core nature for the deck discussed below it cannot be easily corrected. This sort of error should not happen and will not happpen again.
I used to really like this column (including JVL's earlier decks) but it's pretty upsetting to see errors this ridiculous. 7-card mulligans, sideboard references and other errors are easy to forgive if the deck is decent, but illegal decks are just absurd. Very unprofessional. :/
Edit - Kind of funny that this is on the frontpage with the "Get a Job at Wizards" article.
I used to really like this column (including JVL's earlier decks) but it's pretty upsetting to see errors this ridiculous. 7-card mulligans, sideboard references and other errors are easy to forgive if the deck is decent, but illegal decks are just
7 card mulligans could be excused by him and his opponent agreeing to "friendly" mulligans in a relaxed testing session. Sideboard references and other things not so much. Utilizing banned cards is a huge mistake though, and I feel the overall quality of the articles is on a decline.
7 card mulligans could be excused by him and his opponent agreeing to "friendly" mulligans in a relaxed testing session. Sideboard references and other things not so much. Utilizing banned cards is a huge mistake though, and I feel the overall qualit
I'm going to second everyone's words in here. Ponder? Telling us he playtested? I always thought his playtestings where a little absurd, maybe a tad exaggerating when he playtested but come on. That was ridiculous. Now we know why his opponents never really seem experienced, skilled or real.
But I want to mention the othe side of the coin. I'm not a Modern expert or anything, I'm neutral about this format, but the deck seemed to have potential. I really want to build my own version of this, playtest it, also take care of the sideboard and go to a tournament with it. Just for fun of course. No Ponders.
I'm going to second everyone's words in here. Ponder? Telling us he playtested? I always thought his playtestings where a little absurd, maybe a tad exaggerating when he playtested but come on. That was ridiculous. Now we know why his opponents never
The editor's note is all wrong. I don't care that Ponder is actually banned. Replace it with Serum Visions, it's not *that* big a deal. And regardless, surprise deck evolutions are interesting, as are decks just for the sake of being decks that aren't particularly made for a format.
The real problem is that this suggests that the author might have been up against deadline pressure, and BS'd a decklist + fake games, since most of the previous testing has been on Magic Online (which this clearly coudln't have been on). Which is worrying, because plenty of decks which seem in theory to beat other decks don't actually in real games, and cool plays are only cool when they really happened. The editor of MTG Daily should make it very clear to their writers that it's okay to say in articles "Sorry, I was busy this week, I'm going to playtest it next week and get back to you with the results and perhaps some modifications I made as a result." A half-complete article is far preferred to an unreliable article. (JMS would often spend 2-3 weeks with the same deck, so it's not like the audience is totally impatient; JMS was an admired author of the column.)
As for whether this deadline pressure fabrication happened... if this was JVL testing in person with some friends who were scatterbrained, then he should just post and say that (and have said friends give the editor a call to confirm it). Everybody makes mistakes like that, there's no shame in it. If the games were fabricated, then JVL should say so now and apologize, and also verify which previous columns included fabricated game logs, if any. I'm not demanding a resignation or anything over-the-top like that, just own up & move on.
The editor's note is all wrong. I don't care that Ponder is actually banned. Replace it with Serum Visions, it's not *that* big a deal. And regardless, surprise deck evolutions are interesting, as are decks just for the sake of being decks that ar
As I note in my post, pedrodyl, the Ponder mistake is harmless and fine. The problem is that the game stories part of the article *might* have been fabricated. It'd be nice if that would be cleared up in the near future. I don't want to read stories about imaginary games, I want to read real stories.
As I note in my post, pedrodyl, the Ponder mistake is harmless and fine. The problem is that the game stories part of the article *might* have been fabricated. It'd be nice if that would be cleared up in the near future. I don't want to read stori
It's more than a mistake. It's evidence of complete fakery. He built a half-arsed deck (which in and of itself would have been pathetic, but exusable) and then instead of actually playtesting it he just made up some games to make it sound halfway decent and called it a day. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for his readership or for his job. It's proof positive that he isn't doing the job he's being paid to do, and trying to pass off a work of fiction as an informative article. And it's not even well-done fiction!
It's more than a mistake. It's evidence of complete fakery. He built a half-arsed deck (which in and of itself would have been pathetic, but exusable) and then instead of actually playtesting it he just made up some games to make it sound halfway d
I'm going to second everyone's words in here. Ponder? Telling us he playtested? I always thought his playtestings where a little absurd, maybe a tad exaggerating when he playtested but come on. That was ridiculous. Now we know why his opponents never really seem experienced, skilled or real.
But I want to mention the othe side of the coin. I'm not a Modern expert or anything, I'm neutral about this format, but the deck seemed to have potential. I really want to build my own version of this, playtest it, also take care of the sideboard and go to a tournament with it. Just for fun of course. No Ponders.
It's more than a mistake. It's evidence of complete fakery. He built a half-arsed deck (which in and of itself would have been pathetic, but exusable) and then instead of actually playtesting it he just made up some games to make it sound halfway decent and called it a day. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for his readership or for his job. It's proof positive that he isn't doing the job he's being paid to do, and trying to pass off a work of fiction as an informative article. And it's not even well-done fiction!
Before making accusations, you guys might want to remember that BoaB is no longer an MTGO-specific column. Pieces of cardboard don't check for format legality every time you try to shuffle them.
Before making accusations, you guys might want to remember that BoaB is no longer an MTGO-specific column. Pieces of cardboard don't check for format legality every time you try to shuffle them.
You people are extrapolating to a huge degree. Many people like to do their testing with physical cards. You really don't have to fire up magic online to test you know, some people have friends with which to play they game.
It's very strange that nobody noticed that he played an illegal card while testing, but to err is human.
You people are extrapolating to a huge degree. Many people like to do their testing with physical cards. You really don't have to fire up magic online to test you know, some people have friends with which to play they game. It's very strange that nob
You people are extrapolating to a huge degree. Many people like to do their testing with physical cards. You really don't have to fire up magic online to test you know, some people have friends with which to play they game.
It's very strange that nobody noticed that he played an illegal card while testing, but to err is human.
In fact, we have reason to believe that his testing for his deck was with cardboard Magic and not a case of fabricating mtgo results. Behold:
"I untapped and showed my opponent Wildfire. My opponent conceded."
Showing an opponent a card in your hand is not possible on Magic Online outside of in-game actions like revealing to a Silvergill Adept or the after-game action of revealing your entire hand. Now, it's possible JVL's language is not literal, and that by "show" he meant "cast". But to me this creates enough doubt to assume that he was playing with real cards.
I do want to add that despite not suspecting JVL of fraud, I think the recurring criticism of BoaB is legitimate. I don't even care about the issue myself, I just see people complaining all the time. It seems like the most commonly voiced greivances are 1) The series has lost its sense of budget and 2) the testing sessions are a joke. JVL is a pretty cool guy and I don't think he needs to get booted to fix the column. How about sticking to an explicit budget and theorizing matchups with sideboard strategy instead of doing whatever he wants and showcasing 2-3 meaningless games?
In fact, we have reason to believe that his testing for his deck was with cardboard Magic and not a case of fabricating mtgo results.Behold:Showing an opponent a card in your hand is not possible on Magic Online outside of in-game actions like reveal
It's very hard to believe that neither of the people he played against remembered that ponder was banned. And another gripe, why only one game against Tron? Was the opponent too embarassed to continue?
It's very hard to believe that neither of the people he played against remembered that ponder was banned. And another gripe, why only one game against Tron? Was the opponent too embarassed to continue?
I'm going to avoid jumping on the bandwagon here, mistakes happen, to err is human and all that.
What I am curious about though is why this isn't checked automatically? When putting a deck into your fancy deckshowing thingy, why doesn't it ask about the format and say "these cards are illegal in this format"? Pretty much all sites I've been to where I've entered a deck does it, write the name of the card, the script finds the real card for you, adds a link, just like yours does, and then tells me which formats the deck is legal in, and why, or, if I've put in the format already it'll shout at me for doing wrong.
Doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to do, and it would avoid these kinds of mistakes in the future, because it isn't the first time, and it isn't a one-time thing.
I'm going to avoid jumping on the bandwagon here, mistakes happen, to err is human and all that.What I am curious about though is why this isn't checked automatically? When putting a deck into your fancy deckshowing thingy, why doesn't it ask about t
There's no way Jacob has falsified testing for this or any other article. Indeed, I can't help suspecting that it's the need to carry out tests every week that means he sometimes ends up playing paper games against non-expert opponents instead of building the deck on MtGO and giving it a ten match workout.
Missing Ponder's illegality is an easy mistake to make for any player who doesn't play Modern much since it's legal in Standard. Is that really worth an entire thread full of badly articulated hate?
Good grief this comment thread is sad.There's no way Jacob has falsified testing for this or any other article. Indeed, I can't help suspecting that it's the need to carry out tests every week that means he sometimes ends up playing paper games again
There's no way Jacob has falsified testing for this or any other article. Indeed, I can't help suspecting that it's the need to carry out tests every week that means he sometimes ends up playing paper games against non-expert opponents instead of building the deck on MtGO and giving it a ten match workout.
Err, no way? How is there, exactly, no way? It's not that difficult to think up random games, especially against predictable decks like Tron and Affinity. It's not that I think this is necessarily true. I don't think Jacob is pulling our collective leg. However, the format of the column continues to represent a problem. There is no way that Jacob can put out a new deck every week while still remaining competitive and within a budget. He has proven that throughout the course of his career here. So, and I've been saying this for ages now, reduce quantity and increase quality. There is no need to produce a new deck every week. Build a deck one week, then just play it for a week. Talk about strategy, talk about sideboarding, talk about how to play the deck, talk about budget alternatives.
Err, no way? How is there, exactly, no way? It's not that difficult to think up random games, especially against predictable decks like Tron and Affinity. It's not that I think this is necessarily true. I don't think Jacob is pulling our collective l
Can we now please wish Jacob well in his future endeavors and brink back the magic online focused, multiple weeks per deck column? His effort to build bad tournament decks are just embarrassing by now.
There are times that is possible to build budget decks that can beat your local sanctioned metagame. But they are the exception, no the rule. This guy has to come week after week with new tournament "worthy" decks, with no real time to test(testing online is just faster).
If ate least posted the FNM that he goes with this decks, it would be more believable. But it's just sad.
Can we now please wish Jacob well in his future endeavors and brink back the magic online focused, multiple weeks per deck column? His effort to build bad tournament decks are just embarrassing by now. There are times that is possible to build budget
Is it the purpose of this column that the deck HAS to be able to stand up to the best decks in the format? What happened to just building fun, cheap decks that win a decent percentage of non-sideboarded games? I find it hard to believe that this column caters to the hardcore tournament crowd because they're already playing one of the best decks in the format. Budget players <> Tournament players (there are exceptions but I think this is the general rule) so why the pressure to make tournament-viable decks week in and out (which apparently leads to crummy articles). I think this article could support a new deck each week if it didn't have to crush the tournament opposition.
Is it the purpose of this column that the deck HAS to be able to stand up to the best decks in the format? What happened to just building fun, cheap decks that win a decent percentage of non-sideboarded games? I find it hard to believe that this co
I like JVl. But recently, I find his articles a bit lacking. In fact, perhaps as recent as the start of the year. Writing for the mothership is supposed to be the pinnacle of a Magic-related field. It should not be lacking in professionalism as such. So how could such a problem arise?
This raises a few questions.
Is JVL doing any legitimate research?
If so, did he use Gatherer to conduct his research?
Are there any checks on the writer to maintain professionalism?
Are the articles ever vetted seriously?
I do feel that physical games are more engaging than online, but surely someone could call out on ponder being a banned card in modern. If no one does, he/she has been clearly out of the magic scene/hasn't been reading/JVL could have cooked up some games of his own.
I understand that coming up with competitive decks every week is a huge task. But one thing that the higher powers above never realized is that budget decks does not mean competitive decks, vice versa. It will never be, because Modern and Standard Magic is based on a hierarchy. It's high society. The most expensive decks wins the most games, and is clearly the most successful.
Building on a Budget, as a weekly theme, is a dead man walking. Chucking JVL away isn't the end all, be all. But it is clear that he is at wits' end. you can't be budget and win the majority of the games. Having fun is one thing, and winning games play a majority part of having fun.
And Trick is right. This cannot happen again. There are many extremely good writers out there dying to write for the mothership. Give Gavin Verhay a chance. Keep people like Noel, Adam, Maro, and Zac. These people are dynamic, they keep reinventing themselves so they don't stay stale. The rest have to be re-evaluated.
I like JVl. But recently, I find his articles a bit lacking. In fact, perhaps as recent as the start of the year. Writing for the mothership is supposed to be the pinnacle of a Magic-related field. It should not be lacking in professionalism as s
Before making accusations, you guys might want to remember that BoaB is no longer an MTGO-specific column. Pieces of cardboard don't check for format legality every time you try to shuffle them.
^This. I don't even bother checking the Ban lists. I ONLY use hardcopy cards; I would NEVER pay for a commodity that can be lost with a couple of corrupted files. Does it make it harder to playtest? Duh, yes. Do I feel more secure? Duh, yes!
^This. I don't even bother checking the Ban lists. I ONLY use hardcopy cards; I would NEVER pay for a commodity that can be lost with a couple of corrupted files. Does it make it harder to playtest? Duh, yes. Do I feel more secure? Duh, yes!
Can we now please wish Jacob well in his future endeavors and brink back the magic online focused, multiple weeks per deck column? His effort to build bad tournament decks are just embarrassing by now.
There are times that is possible to build budget decks that can beat your local sanctioned metagame. But they are the exception, no the rule. This guy has to come week after week with new tournament "worthy" decks, with no real time to test(testing online is just faster).
If ate least posted the FNM that he goes with this decks, it would be more believable. But it's just sad.
Really? Because I've taken ideas of his and run with them, placing 5th of 20 at my local FNM with deck ideas of his multiple times.
Really? Because I've taken ideas of his and run with them, placing 5th of 20 at my local FNM with deck ideas of his multiple times.
Maybe they could just get a few folks to share the BoaB column on some kind of rotation? Trying to get everything in each week seems like it is making the articles suffer. But if there were 3 people, each writing an article every 3 weeks, their articles could be fully fleshed out.
Maybe they could just get a few folks to share the BoaB column on some kind of rotation? Trying to get everything in each week seems like it is making the articles suffer. But if there were 3 people, each writing an article every 3 weeks, their artic
I've said this before about BoaB and I will say it again. Why does this article feel the need to be competitive? I think the mass majority of your players are not competitive Magic players. I would be surprised if more than half had ever been to a FNM, much less competed or WON.
My closest gamestore is over an hour away so I have no intention of attempting FNM. My playgroup is 5 guys max on any given night. I read BoaB because I want to beat my 5 buddies who are playing, literally, at my kitchen table. $80 is not budget. For me, $50 is not really budget. If a deck has a 4 count of any card over 5 dollars it's immediately out of my budget.
The need for this article to be competitive is going to be it's downfall. Put together fun, interesting decks that fulfill my desire to build something new without breaking the bank. Screw formats and ban lists. You have the entire history of Magic cards at your disposal. Use them.
I've said this before about BoaB and I will say it again. Why does this article feel the need to be competitive? I think the mass majority of your players are not competitive Magic players. I would be surprised if more than half had ever been to a
Shuffling writers seems like a bad idea, JVL or whoever writes BoaB should just use decks for like 2 or 3 weeks and evolve them over time, discuss sideboards, try out different things. Or even do the "evolve a precon" thing, just startig with an event deck to start with better, more playable cards.
Shuffling writers seems like a bad idea, JVL or whoever writes BoaB should just use decks for like 2 or 3 weeks and evolve them over time, discuss sideboards, try out different things. Or even do the "evolve a precon" thing, just startig with an eve
How much mana do you need to wildfire one turn and then cast Frost Giant the next? The implication from that bit of the article is wildfire only hits opponents land so either you've protected your land or you have a ton of mana available, or it's badly written.
To be honest I sort of suspect I don't know how the deck works.
How much mana do you need to wildfire one turn and then cast Frost Giant the next? The implication from that bit of the article is wildfire only hits opponents land so either you've protected your land or you have a ton of mana available, or it's ba
I've said this before about BoaB and I will say it again. Why does this article feel the need to be competitive? I think the mass majority of your players are not competitive Magic players. I would be surprised if more than half had ever been to a FNM, much less competed or WON.
My closest gamestore is over an hour away so I have no intention of attempting FNM. My playgroup is 5 guys max on any given night. I read BoaB because I want to beat my 5 buddies who are playing, literally, at my kitchen table. $80 is not budget. For me, $50 is not really budget. If a deck has a 4 count of any card over 5 dollars it's immediately out of my budget.
The need for this article to be competitive is going to be it's downfall. Put together fun, interesting decks that fulfill my desire to build something new without breaking the bank. Screw formats and ban lists. You have the entire history of Magic cards at your disposal. Use them.
It's not joining the badwagon at this point, it's refusing to get on a sinking ship.
JVL has weekly issues, and none of his articles have enough testing, or even a single match involving three games.
I guess some of you guys know the guy, or watch him on SCG, or something that biases your opinion. I mean, he is a cool guy, but it doesn't matter if you're Fonzie, if you constantly drop the milk as a grocery bagger you're let go.
I realize this is a tough column, but I also realize when that excuse has been abused to much, and when no advice reaches the guy.
Pick a format, look for a cheap deck. Play with it while taking notes on the games (or a video). Modify it. Write an article. Play with it. Finetune it. Get into some real games. Write an article. Work a sideboard. Test it in games. Write an article on the results.
Deck become too expensive? Ignore the restriction? Make excuses? How about change decks or adapt? Articles are hard? It's hard to keep track of games? To keep up with the banlist of your format? To talk about how your deck works? Then it's time to give up.
I truly build on a budget, both to save money on one of my many hobbies, but also to challenge myself to adapt and grow into a better builder. $50. I take an Event Deck, I upgrade it. I adapt it to my metagame. It wins, and it fights tough match-ups where my opponent's have me outbid by $300. The next set comes out and off to a new deck project I go. For a few months, fun is had, and a test of meddle is had. What more can I ask out of $50?
It fights tough match-ups. 35-65 match-ups. It perseveres, and sometimes playing perfectly isn't enough, but it is admirable in its own right.
It also has to make tough decisions. 4 Birthing Pod is a necessity, for example, but sometimes 4 Birds of Paradise is not (Llanowar Elf is not much worse at all). You have to decide what can and cannot be cut, and figure out alterations or directions you have to take to stay in budget and still stay successful.
Talking about a budget is easy, actually implementing it is not. But you have to have principles, don't just give in because the deck would just be so much better with 4 Sword of War and Peace . When you give in and make exceptions, you no longer think like a budget player. Many budget players can't make exceptions like JVL can, some of us actually can't because we can't afford to, literally.
As for JVL, he can't afford to and he doesn't realize it. When you tell yourself you have a cheap deck idea, you want to play it, and then you find out it's not cheap: you can forgive yourself and go ahead with it anyway, nobody cares. But when you go around telling people you have a cheap deck idea you would like to share with them, and then notice it isn't cheap, you don't start arguing to them that it's cheap and make excuses and persuade them to do it anyway.
This is just some advice from a fellow budget player.
It's not joining the badwagon at this point, it's refusing to get on a sinking ship.JVL has weekly issues, and none of his articles have enough testing, or even a single match involving three games.I guess some of you guys know the guy, or watch him
2 Weeks in a row where he messed up with card legality (last week he at least caught the Sword before he submitted the article, but didn't bother to correct it).
Perhaps he's got other things in his life that are detracting from his performance. I ask you JVL to take a moment to re-evaluate your priorities. There's nothing wrong with stepping down from writing if you can't bring your best any more. Everyone has to do it eventually.
2 Weeks in a row where he messed up with card legality (last week he at least caught the Sword before he submitted the article, but didn't bother to correct it).Perhaps he's got other things in his life that are detracting from his performance. I ask
For all the people talking about how the column should go back to the way it used to be...JVL's version is actually quite similar to the original, Nate Heiss version of the column.
I preferred the JMS / Ben Bleiweiss versions too but they weren't really "Building on a Budget" -- that name really does bring to mind more "suggestions on how to win FNMs without breaking the bank" than "watch me build casual decks". What I'd really prefer would be if they'd bring back something along the lines of those incarnations of BoaB as a different column. We've got several columns that present decks (BoaB and From The Lab every week, and Serious Fun fairly often) and while they all go into some detail of why they made the choices that they did, we don't really have a column about "deckbuilding" anymore. That's what JMS's and Ben's versions of BoaB really were.
As for the current article, Sleight of Hand can replace Ponder fine. I keep meaning to try and put together a Wildfire deck for Modern, but I'm not really sure the Eminent Domain approach is really the best one, even if it is a deck I have a soft spot for too.
For all the people talking about how the column should go back to the way it used to be...JVL's version is actually quite similar to the original, Nate Heiss version of the column.I preferred the JMS / Ben Bleiweiss versions too but they weren't real
I don't often follow this column, but there's one thing I have to say : if one of your playtesting games consists in playing against someone who didn't draw anything relevant and never really fought for the victory, please don't show it. Playtest some more. And do best of threes. One game is nothing.
I don't often follow this column, but there's one thing I have to say : if one of your playtesting games consists in playing against someone who didn't draw anything relevant and never really fought for the victory, please don't show it. Playtest som
I would love to see a sideboarding article. I have played for over a decade and I still feel like I throw my board together pretty haphazardly and it is the weakest part of my game.
Despite the obvious ponder mistake, JVL is still my favorite author of this column and I have read them all.
I would love to see a sideboarding article. I have played for over a decade and I still feel like I throw my board together pretty haphazardly and it is the weakest part of my game.Despite the obvious ponder mistake, JVL is still my favorite author
Ponder? Then the Editor-in-Chief of DailyMTG.com spells happen with 3 p's? Blarg! It leads me to believe the testing was done in his head, not with an actual opponent.
Ponder? Then the Editor-in-Chief of DailyMTG.com spells happen with 3 p's? Blarg! It leads me to believe the testing was done in his head, not with an actual opponent.
I used to really like this column (including JVL's earlier decks) but it's pretty upsetting to see errors this ridiculous. 7-card mulligans, sideboard references and other errors are easy to forgive if the deck is decent, but illegal decks are just absurd. Very unprofessional. :/
Edit - Kind of funny that this is on the frontpage with the "Get a Job at Wizards" article.
I realized that about the job article as well! Seems like Wizards will be looking for a new BOAB writer soon.
I realized that about the job article as well! Seems like Wizards will be looking for a new BOAB writer soon.
I've said this before about BoaB and I will say it again. Why does this article feel the need to be competitive? I think the mass majority of your players are not competitive Magic players. I would be surprised if more than half had ever been to a FNM, much less competed or WON.
My closest gamestore is over an hour away so I have no intention of attempting FNM. My playgroup is 5 guys max on any given night. I read BoaB because I want to beat my 5 buddies who are playing, literally, at my kitchen table. $80 is not budget. For me, $50 is not really budget. If a deck has a 4 count of any card over 5 dollars it's immediately out of my budget.
The need for this article to be competitive is going to be it's downfall. Put together fun, interesting decks that fulfill my desire to build something new without breaking the bank. Screw formats and ban lists. You have the entire history of Magic cards at your disposal. Use them.
Isn't serious fun more what you are looking for?
...
Serious Fun? Seriously? Have you seen the decklists Styborski uses? Budget is the last thing on his mind. Styborski has turned Serious Fun into a list of possible formats to play and an ode to social Timmies and Magic for the rest. Neither is interesting to someone who wants to build and see cheap decks.
Isn't serious fun more what you are looking for?[/quote]...Serious Fun? Seriously? Have you seen the decklists Styborski uses? Budget is the last thing on his mind. Styborski has turned Serious Fun into a list of possible formats to play and an ode t
How much money per week do you guys think building on a budget would be?
For example, let's say, at the beginning of Avacyn Restored Wizards gives him $20 (or enough for a fat pack or an event deck). Then has him build a standard deck. He could wrack his brain and try to build the best deck he could with $20 (and let's be honest, it'd probably be pretty bad given that budget). Then next week, he gets another $20 or something to that effect. He could spend the weekly allowance on MTGO and then post the videos of his test games. Could be "evolution of a budget deck" or something to that effect. Part of the problem might just be the current process for making this article.
At the same time, I don't think it's crazy unfair him to try and build a budget deck of various formats every week (one week he could do modern, another standard, another legacy, another commander - hahaha budget commander) and then give a monthly update on the decks until a new set comes out. However, let's be honest, a good original deck often takes some time to think up and build. How much time is Wizards giving him to build and test these things? Sure, maybe I can throw together a decent cheap red deck without spending more than a few hours initially, but then I do a five round FNM that takes 5 hours and then tweak it some more... and bam, suddenly I've spent like 10 hours on a deck and that's not even counting time I go out and spend on buying singletons. We won't even get started on when I build wacky decks like Rage Extractor and Genesis Wave, which require ridiculous amounts of fine tweaking to break even on game wins.
I guess my point is this, when building outside of typical archtypes (and if they're budget, they'll have to be), you really have to spend some time putting the deck together, testing it, and tweaking it. If he wants to do it right, he's going to either need a lot of time, or he's going to need a decent chunk of time each week and to be carrying a deck over from week-to-week and talking about its changes. I don't expect a format breaking deck regardless of what he builds, but a week-to-week update on how the deck did and what he's changing sounds fun. I mean, am I the only one who expects an intial budget deck to do some terrible **** like 1 - 4 in a tourney? This column really could and maybe should be about overcoming budgetary issues and the process he uses to do it.
All that said, I liked this week's deck, even if it wasn't actually modern. I think maybe the author needs to get out to his local shops and get a little more into the actual Magic scene. A lot of the errors seem to be just due to the fact that's he's not actually out there competing and learning, but postulating based on what he sees going on in the current magic scene. When you play mostly casually and you're building format decks, it's easy to overlook that a card like ponder is banned or that a certain sword has rotated.
How much money per week do you guys think building on a budget would be?For example, let's say, at the beginning of Avacyn Restored Wizards gives him $20 (or enough for a fat pack or an event deck). Then has him build a standard deck. He could wrac
Pick a format, look for a cheap deck. Play with it while taking notes on the games (or a video). Modify it. Write an article. Play with it. Finetune it. Get into some real games. Write an article. Work a sideboard. Test it in games. Write an article on the results.
This. What JVL does every week is only the tip of the iceberg as far as deckbuilding goes. JVL only does the first two steps in your list, and not even always; too often, he replaces "look for a cheap deck" with "look for a marginally less expensive deck", and as has been pointed out often (not just this week) it seems he might not always actually playtest. Even if his playtest matches are legitimate, he still misses the point. The first playtest is not even close to the end of the deckbuilding process; the first playtest is supposed to suggest flaws in the first draft of the decklist and inspire ideas on how to improve it.
Yes, to show the entire deckbuilding process in a single column is going to result in long columns; this is why previous authors would work with a deck over multiple weeks. There's nothing wrong with it. It allows many more playtest matches and, more importantly, an actual evolution of the deck. It also allows a more in-depth look at why certain cards were chosen over others, something in which JVL is sorely lacking. Rather than a card-by-card "this card is in here because X", it could (and frequently should) be "the following cards could fill this role, but for this deck X is the best". That way, if a reader has to make substitutes for whatever reason (budget, unavailability, already owns an alternative) the other options are already presented in such a way as to suggest which alternatives are better than others.
The point of this column shouldn't be to provide a decklist, but to aid people in understanding the deckbuilding process so they can learn to make their own decks. This is the only column that is about the deckbuilding process; therefore, the deckbuilding component of the article should be just as important as actually following a budget.
Deck become too expensive? Ignore the restriction? Make excuses? How about change decks or adapt? Articles are hard? It's hard to keep track of games? To keep up with the banlist of your format? To talk about how your deck works? Then it's time to give up.
Exactly. How much longer are we going to keep making excuses for him? Every week, people come to this column with complaints, and other people have to jump in to defend him. How many other columns have this problem? I'd think that if not a week goes by without multiple complaints, eventually it would become apparent that, regardless of the people defending the author, something is wrong. No, you can't please everyone all of the time, but you can at least not consistently upset a fair portion of your audience.
This. What JVL does every week is only the tip of the iceberg as far as deckbuilding goes. JVL only does the first two steps in your list, and not even always; too often, he replaces "look for a cheap deck" with "look for a marginally less expensive
JVL never implied his testing was in MTGO. He has even mentioned going to somebody's house to test his decks sometimes.
If he likes to do his brewing/testing on actual cards, it's very easy to miss the fact that any given card is unavailable in any given format. Same goes for the person he played with. Sure, both of them (and Trick) should have checked beforehand, etc., etc. JVL and Trick got burned and I think they'll be more careful next time.
JVL mentioned at the beginning of his stint as BoaB writer that he did not like the $30 limit, and he had his reasons. Then he mentioned it again in another article. The editors are okay with this, and I'm guessing some readers (myself included) are okay with it too.
Each author will give each column his or her own spin. If you don't like a certain columnist, that's okay, and mentioning it here is a step in the right direction. But expecting every author to do things exactly like his predecessor is kind of silly.
Seems like people are overreacting to me.JVL never implied his testing was in MTGO. He has even mentioned going to somebody's house to test his decks sometimes.If he likes to do his brewing/testing on actual cards, it's very easy to miss the fact tha
I thought you really tested your decks on MOL, but since ponder is banned, seems pretty clear now you dont.
Iam feeling cheated, you articles are a fraud, your decks are bad, and you are a terrible professional.
I remember you put a firespout on a alara-zendikar standard deck once, so this is not the first time you do this kind of terrible mistake.
I wish we could have Ben Bleweiss back too...
I recind my defense of JVL and his near-Modern deck. This is an unacceptable mistake. I have been tollerant of his errors before, defending him too. Such an obvious oversight is bothersome.
There is no way he tests online. MTGO would've stopped him in his tracks. This means he playtests in on paper (if at all). That leads me to believe games are A) staged; B) use posted decklists; C) have an opponent unfamiliar with their deck; and D) Are more of an after thought.
Time for BoaB to find a new spell writer.
I recind my defense of JVL and his near-Modern deck. This is an unacceptable mistake. I have been tollerant of his errors before, defending him too. Such an obvious oversight is bothersome.There is no way he tests online. MTGO would've stopped him in
JVL never implied his testing was in MTGO. He has even mentioned going to somebody's house to test his decks sometimes.
If he likes to do his brewing/testing on actual cards, it's very easy to miss the fact that any given card is unavailable in any given format. Same goes for the person he played with. Sure, both of them (and Trick) should have checked beforehand, etc., etc. JVL and Trick got burned and I think they'll be more careful next time.
JVL mentioned at the beginning of his stint as BoaB writer that he did not like the $30 limit, and he had his reasons. Then he mentioned it again in another article. The editors are okay with this, and I'm guessing some readers (myself included) are okay with it too.
Each author will give each column his or her own spin. If you don't like a certain columnist, that's okay, and mentioning it here is a step in the right direction. But expecting every author to do things exactly like his predecessor is kind of silly.
I agree with half your points. I draw the budget line at $50. Building a $30 deck nowadays is hard. Making it competative is laughable. I only took issue with his $100-$200 "budget" decks. His spin is fine too.
I have never actually played a Modern game. I play strictly casual. BUT, I knew Ponder is off limits. It annoys me because it is one of the few good, cheap card drawing spells. I can't see how such a mistake could be made by someone putting more effort or care into their articles.
I agree with half your points. I draw the budget line at $50. Building a $30 deck nowadays is hard. Making it competative is laughable. I only took issue with his $100-$200 "budget" decks. His spin is fine too.I have never actually played a Modern ga
Before making accusations, you guys might want to remember that BoaB is no longer an MTGO-specific column. Pieces of cardboard don't check for format legality every time you try to shuffle them.
^This. I don't even bother checking the Ban lists. I ONLY use hardcopy cards; I would NEVER pay for a commodity that can be lost with a couple of corrupted files. Does it make it harder to playtest? Duh, yes. Do I feel more secure? Duh, yes!
Your collection isn't stored as files on your computer. (Or any single computer.) If it was then hacked and lost collections would happen. Digital cards are stored in Wizard's database, and not just in one place. They haven't had any data loss yet and I don't think they ever will. (Although people have been banned.)
By comparison, paper cards are vulnerable to theft, spilled liquids, poor storage, and shuffling. Or if you're really careless, being left behind at the card store. (And then stolen.) Sure, your digital collection will vanish if the service ever ends. But if the service ever ends it will be the end of paper magic, too, and most paper cards will be worthless. Many cards are already worthless despite Legacy and EDH. Digital cards are cheaper and offer convenience.
^This. I don't even bother checking the Ban lists. I ONLY use hardcopy cards; I would NEVER pay for a commodity that can be lost with a couple of corrupted files. Does it make it harder to playtest? Duh, yes. Do I feel more secure? Duh, yes![/quote]Y
I for one have been enjoying JVLs columns every week. I like the systematic way he explains card choices and the way he explains his games in depth. The direction he took building on a budget by removing the 30 ticket limit made it way more interesting and fun. This is the guy who invented pyromancer's ascension people! So he had an off week, cut him some slack.
As seen in last weeks article, JVL does not necessarily play in MTGO. The system would not have allowed him to play his deck in standard. This means he either playtests them with physical cards or invents scenarios in his mind. Frankly, I don't care if they're made up as long as they are INTERESTING. I read BoaB not because i want to imitate the decks he makes but to see interesting deck ideas with cards i normally wouldn't use or even think of using. I hope they keep him as a writer. For this particular fiasco i would put SOME of the blame on his editor for 1) not seeing that ponder was in the decklist and 2) not communicating with JVL regarding his deck construction and plans regarding future articles. JVL needs to tighten things up though and i hope he does.
I for one have been enjoying JVLs columns every week. I like the systematic way he explains card choices and the way he explains his games in depth. The direction he took building on a budget by removing the 30 ticket limit made it way more interesti
For fifty bucks, it might be a good idea to just buy two of the same event deck and mash them together.
Haha, it works sometimes, and others not. Like Spiraling Doom benefits from picking up 2 more BPod. But honestly... The other 73 cards don't have a ton of spots... You get a lot of redundancies. So you spend $20 on 2 BPod and... some stuff. Not a good investment of $20.
Based on past mistakes, I think JVL:
1) Notices a new/unpopular deck idea. 2) Basically netdecks the basic ideas and explains it as if he made the choices himself (without explaining alternatives... he doesn't know alternatives; this leads to excuses about budget when the idea turns out to be too expensive.) 3) Tests it by himself late at night (so he makes bad mistakes against himself, and his opponent has just as much knowledge as he does) 4) Sleeps on it for a few days. 5) Hurridly tries to meet the deadline by trying to remember the few games he's played (often doggedly, having to sort of make-up situations that may be true, but memory doesn't serve him correctly). 6) emailemailemailemail 7) Sleep for a few days and think about looking at last week's Daily Tournaments or a few other choice websites with another idea.
For fifty bucks, it might be a good idea to just buy two of the same event deck and mash them together.[/quote]Haha, it works sometimes, and others not. Like Spiraling Doom benefits from picking up 2 more BPod. But honestly... The other 73 cards don'
I for one have been enjoying JVLs columns every week. I like the systematic way he explains card choices and the way he explains his games in depth. The direction he took building on a budget by removing the 30 ticket limit made it way more interesting and fun. This is the guy who invented pyromancer's ascension people! So he had an off week, cut him some slack.
In-depth game reports and card choice explanation have been a staple of BoaB for as long as it exists, under any writer. Jacob goes a little more in-depth on the reports, mentioning every single play, but he compensates this by only playing 2-4 games each week. He's about equal on card choice explanation, though I feel that this was done better before because you would actually see the games that forced a particular choice.
The fact that he invented Pyromancer Ascension doesn't give him a get out of jail free card. Every week, we get another deck, and I still barely have an idea how each deck plays. The games he plays he conveniently wins, and we are left without a clue how the deck actually performs within the metagame. He does not discuss sideboarding strategies, budget alternatives, anything that would be in-depth. We've been saying this for ages now, and every once in a while (usually around new set releases where he can't test yet) we get some of this. But it never manages to be more than a one-time trick, and we soon go back to the weekly drudgery.
I have said this before, and I fear I must say it again and again before someone who matters will actually think it: there needs to be more than one column per deck. It's the only way that Jacob can write this column and provide the necessary in-depth analysis of sideboarding, deck matchups and more games.
In-depth game reports and card choice explanation have been a staple of BoaB for as long as it exists, under any writer. Jacob goes a little more in-depth on the reports, mentioning every single play, but he compensates this by only playing 2-4 games
Edit - Kind of funny that this is on the frontpage with the "Get a Job at Wizards" article.
Wondering whether a proofreading, editing, fact-checking, or quality control type job for the website was open was my very first thought.
Or whether such a position will suddenly, Magically appear.
Wondering whether a proofreading, editing, fact-checking, or quality control type job for the website was open was my very first thought.Or whether such a position will suddenly, Magically appear.
The problem with JVL is that he just make the worst choices possible:
He always put his decks against established archetypes of current metagame. This mean he is trying to make a normal deck cheaper(and make it worse), or trying to go Rogue. The first option is boring, the second is very very hard. He could solve this by attacking the casual format, going against elves or monoredburn.dec. Easier to come with neat deck ideas when you are not trying to beat titans, swords and huntmasters.
He focus in one deck per week, so he has to do all the hard stuff above, in much less time. He could go for 3-4 weeks developing a deck, or go through many decks, changing the one he talks about each week. But no, he just coughs up a bad rogue deck week after week
He just ignores magic online. Even if he don't like to playtest there, or use the online market to do his choices, he could make the final try in the deck by building and playing 2-3 matches online. It would help to catch these kind of mistakes
To me, BoaB is not a column for the spikes. It has to carter to Timmy-Jhonny audiences. The deck HAS to be cool someway. It's not that it can be just winwinwin. Jacob seems restrained. All the past authors seemed happy and having fun building the deck, or showcasing some odd bulk rare. He appear struggling each week to come up with something. I like his as an author, I really do. I don't know if it's the theme, or just the methods, but could be better.
The problem with JVL is that he just make the worst choices possible:He always put his decks against established archetypes of current metagame. This mean he is trying to make a normal deck cheaper(and make it worse), or trying to go Rogue. The first
How much mana do you need to wildfire one turn and then cast Frost Giant the next? The implication from that bit of the article is wildfire only hits opponents land so either you've protected your land or you have a ton of mana available, or it's badly written.
To be honest I sort of suspect I don't know how the deck works.
Playing it right after is possible, but unlikely. Playing it two turns after however, isn't out of the question. You figure that on turns 1-3 you can drop a single accelerator artifact. That will put you at 5 mana on turn 4, so you can annex or dream lash a land. Now this steals your opponents land, and gives it to youm giving you 6 mana at the start of turn 5. From here you can drop a land, and play either an Wildfire, killing 4 of your opponents, land, and leaving you with 3 mana producers. Against anything that's not zoo or burn, the game is pretty much over at this point. So many decks run heavy on the fetchlands that they will have a hard time drawing back into 4-5 lands before you can land a titan or another wildfire.
Playing it right after is possible, but unlikely. Playing it two turns after however, isn't out of the question. You figure that on turns 1-3 you can drop a single accelerator artifact. That will put you at 5 mana on turn 4, so you can annex or dream
At the beginning , i loved JVL's articles. It offered some fresh decks like that Mass Polymorph deck with Massacre Wurm and Terastodon and the Bloom Tender infinite combos. Then started the Transmuter articles ( too many of them in my opinion ). Then things like articles without a decklist like Fiend Hunting. I'm kind of tired right now. JVL we want to see weird combos (budget ones), stupid fast decks and really mindbreaking control decks. Not the same deck over and over again ( Transmuter this one is for you) or bad decks that go 1-2 or 1-3 at the local FNM's. Not all is bad though and i admit I thought that Ponder was modern legal. Modern is possibly the worst format right now, because of the bannings. Why ban Wild Nacatl and not ban Tarmogoyf?! Why ban Ponder and Preordain and not ban Gifts?!
Just replace the mana base and the Swords and you have a relatively cheap deck ( not inside the Boab budget ) but fun to play with.
Well, I wish JVL the best of luck and really hope to see a better deck than this one next week.
At the beginning , i loved JVL's articles. It offered some fresh decks like that Mass Polymorph deck with Massacre Wurm and Terastodon and the Bloom Tender infinite combos. Then started the Transmuter articles ( too many of them in my opinion ). Then
As of this posting, it fits around a $30 budget and easily has room to improve for those willing to go beyond that. Pretty sure I could churn out a whole old-school BoaB article on it if I weren't restraining myself, too.
In similar spirit of the above poster, I offer both a Modern legal and BoaB-spirited deck:Modern WarpCreatures (26)4x Farhaven Elf4x Joraga Treespeaker4x Overgrown Battlement2x Sakura-Tribe Elder4x Wood Elves2x Anarchist1x Avenger of Zendikar1x Bogar
Why ban Wild Nacatl and not ban Tarmogoyf?! Why ban Ponder and Preordain and not ban Gifts?!
Because Tarmogoyf and Gifts weren't leading to decks winning consistantly on turn 3. Preventing decks from consistantly winning on turn 3 is their stated goal of the bannings for Modern.
Just replace the mana base and the Swords
With what? It's much harder to have a 3-color token deck without the best color fixers and creature-enhancers and remain anything like competitive.
Because Tarmogoyf and Gifts weren't leading to decks winning consistantly on turn 3. Preventing decks from consistantly winning on turn 3 is their stated goal of the bannings for Modern.With what? It's much harder to have a 3-color token deck without
To me, BoaB is not a column for the spikes. It has to carter to Timmy-Jhonny audiences. The deck HAS to be cool someway. It's not that it can be just winwinwin. Jacob seems restrained. All the past authors seemed happy and having fun building the deck, or showcasing some odd bulk rare. He appear struggling each week to come up with something. I like his as an author, I really do. I don't know if it's the theme, or just the methods, but could be better.
I agree with this.
However, I think the focus of BoaB has shifted to FNM-viability. It's hard to say whether that shift was initiated by JVL or suggested by WotC themselves.
I agree with this. However, I think the focus of BoaB has shifted to FNM-viability. It's hard to say whether that shift was initiated by JVL or suggested by WotC themselves.
