Community

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Senyuno wrote:

As a builder, I realize sometimes my SB is way too expensive. I cut back, of course, but some players give in and let the SB be costless (honestly not a bad idea considering no SB is right for everyone anyway, it's a fluff feature of a deck-building article).

While you're right about Damnation , I do want to mention this is Modern, an eternal format. You're guaranteed to be allowed your deck for much time to come, so whether that is deceptive or not, it's affecting the market. It can obviously be budgeted, but by percent, not by an absolute budget taken directly from whatever your standard budget is. If it's too much, you can't play.

I don't think it's ridiculous to expect that an entire column based on building within a budget is going too far when it includes overpriced cards, be them in the sideboard or main deck.

Besides, if the sideboard is a fluff feature as you put it, then why the heck did JVL essentially re-do a previous column with 4-5 revisions based on the metagame that focused solely on sideboarding? If he's just jerking us off by doing this and not paying any attention to people's budgets by including expensive cards because it's a "Fluff feature" then I'd rather he just gave us a new deck instead of pointlessly repeating himself.

As for your point about this being modern, I am not sure if you are suggesting that means that prices will go up or down or what? In any case, I'm not expecting him to predict market trends, just to honour the time and current market value when he's making decklists. (On a sidenote- I don't think anyone will argue that damnation will stay high for quite sometime, unless it sees 3+ reprintings.)

Look, at the end of the day this column is about building on a budget. Not "building on a budget except for the sideboard or whenever the hell I feel like making an exception". Some people are willing or have the means to spend more. Some don't. For those in the first category, there are Many resources on this site that explore those options. This is one of the sole places on this site, and on the internet, where there is a database of budget friendly decks. Losing sight or respect for that just sucks to be quite honest. I can tinker on my own all I want, but I like reading other people's ideas and how they get around budget restrictions - it's how I've grown as a budget builder.

But "Durr durr having creature problems? Use damnation lol" is just plain awful.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:02AM, Mandroid wrote:

About the Damnation: I really think that for BOAB there are good alternatives.  Some people can't throw down for $40  of sideboard for one deck.  The problem with this deck is that it folds to creature matchups.  So why not put in stuff that's really good against creatures? 
These are all very reasonable options that are super cheap:
Darkblast, Flame Jab, Funeral Charm,  Infest, Consuming Vapors, Consume the Meek

Also these are good and may find a home, but could easily be a build of their own:
Raven's Crime, Grim Harvest,

I completely agree with you, and thanks for the suggestions. But I do know there are a ton of alternatives, I do my research too. Isn't his job to *playtest* these alternatives, not just cave in and use a $25 rare because it's easier?

As for your point that some people can't afford to throw down $40 for a sideboard, I agree completely.
By what you just said, is that not the point of this entire column? It is meant for budget players, not "I'm on a budget but lol I'll spend $40 on a sideboard cause thats okay herp derp".

I really don't see how there can be any justification for JVL including this in his column unless for some reason he and his editor had no idea Damnation is worth anything, which is almost worse in my mind (remember the ponder incident from a couple of columns back).

What's so complicated about this concept:

1) Column is called Building on a budget
2) Build on a freaking budget man

I don't see what is getting lost here in his mind.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 11:11PM, Zindaras wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:14AM, writer1007 wrote:

It's great that you explained everything and listened to the audience, but you pulled a writing gaffe.

Don't tell us what you will write about, just write about it.

I see this mistake more and more and it baffles me. I was given the proverbial hand slap on essays and the like many many times for this, yet it seems that I am seeing it more and more.

Well, I think it's kind of a choice. In scientific circles, most papers introduce their subject and even their results before they start. Then again, I've also had professors who were vociferously against this.

To be honest, the only writing classes I ever took were in high school, but high school English teachers are some of the worst writers I've ever met. After I graduated high school, I threw away everything my English teachers taught, and my writing suddenly improved by leaps and bounds.

I don't mind writers telling me what they'll write about before they start writing about it. It gives me an idea of what to expect and some structure to follow. What tends to bother me is the extreme opposite, when the writer starts writing, and I have to read half the article before I can tell what they're trying to say.