|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 7:43AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2012
|
Budget is budget. Not "budget except for this card". If you can't make a budget deck without 80 dollars in lands, then don't try.
I was at first going to post in Verhey's defense, but after I looked at the decklists, I agree with you.
The deck with 4 temple gardens and 4 sunpetal groves is no budget deck.
You can still be budget with dual lands. Sunpetals were pretty low price unless they've gone up a lot since I last checked two weeks ago. It's just shocks are not.
Adding 4 temple gardens to a budget deck is like adding 2 trostani and 2 armada wurms. Personally I think the articles idea of budget is bizarre. "no new rares or mythics" budget does not mean pauper deck. And there are many mythics and rares that do fit budget (tree of redemption, mirror mad phantasm are not high cost cards). It just seems silly to say no new mythics/rares without taking into account their market price, and then at the same time saying "We're going to include 10 dollar rares". I think the article author should really just avoid doing some decks. Last time he picked a B/W deck...a deck type that had at the time the most expensive dual land in standard. Now he does one that requires ANOTHER ten dollar rare. I understand why this time (it's Selesnya week) but there are decks that don't need pricey rares. Like that rat deck that was mentioned in the article.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 9:03AM
#22
|
|
|
Four copies of Wayfaring Temple  ? What part of "Include No New Rares or Mythic rares" does that guy not understand? Or am I missing something here? How about REAL budget decks, please.
You are missing something. The original deck had 4 copies of Wayfaring Temple. He didn't add any new rares to the deck, they were already there.
He talks about the criteria in the article that he linked at the top under "the beginning of that article".
Thank you. I took "new rares" to mean rare cards in the newest set. Duh, me. More coffee, please!!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 3:19PM
#23
|
|
|
That Izzet infinite combo deck is looking tasty! Leave it to U/R to continually turn 8's on their sides! Also, I submitted a competitive Modern deck as per the request at the end of the article, but forgot to include a name for the deck. I've been calling it Golden Rock and I also posted it in the Modern forum here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 7:40PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2008
|
I proxied up the Population Nation deck (the second decklist) for my friend, and he overran me with an immense army of tokens lead by four 39/39 Wayfaring Temples.
Lovin' budget Selesnya right now.
I should probably put something here someday.
Here's a set I'm working on: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29422241/Corthenhol_--_A_Work_in_Progress
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 10:39PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2007
|
I've gotta disagree with Gavin about shocklands in a budget deck. You're not necessarily going to use them over and over again. There are ten two color combinations, but the Standard format only changes seven times before they rotate out, so you might not get around to playing green white again. You're not necessarily going to be able to sell them for as much as you bought them, unless you are trading with friends. Shops always sell high and buy low so you would probably lose 50% of their value (even more if you wait till they're not in Standard to get rid of them). It's nice to not get color screwed in Magic, but there are lots of other choices that don't cost so much money. The easiest substitution is Selesnya Guildgate  , but if you want to hit basic land types more often to make the Sunpetal Grove  s untapped (which are budget cards - they're only $3 apiece), then you could use Evolving Wilds  . If you really had no other choices than shocklands, then you could just reduce the deck's dependance on colored mana by taking out the Strangleroot Geists (it's usually a lot easier to get GW than GG in a two colored deck). In some cases you can do things like use nonland slots for mana fixing (eg Borderland Ranger  ). Or you could use two forests and two plains and accept that you will have to mulligan 5% more often than a person whose deck costs three times as much. Budget means budget. It means the deck by itself must be cheap. It doesn't even mean that you can't add rares to a deck - some of them are 10c apiece or you can get friends to give them to you for free - but on the flipside if you want to use a $5 uncommon you gotta question it. You can't assume that players are going to use any of these cards in another deck. You can't assume they have friends to trade with. You can't wave your hands over the mana base like some kind of Jedi and pretend that it has no cost. Fortunately, I started my own budget deckbuilding blog a little while ago
Show
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 4:56PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2012
|
I've gotta disagree with Gavin about shocklands in a budget deck.
You're not necessarily going to use them over and over again. There are ten two color combinations, but the Standard format only changes seven times before they rotate out, so you might not get around to playing green white again.
You're not necessarily going to be able to sell them for as much as you bought them, unless you are trading with friends. Shops always sell high and buy low so you would probably lose 50% of their value (even more if you wait till they're not in Standard to get rid of them).
It's nice to not get color screwed in Magic, but there are lots of other choices that don't cost so much money. The easiest substitution is Selesnya Guildgate , but if you want to hit basic land types more often to make the Sunpetal Grove s untapped (which are budget cards - they're only $3 apiece), then you could use Evolving Wilds .
If you really had no other choices than shocklands, then you could just reduce the deck's dependance on colored mana by taking out the Strangleroot Geists (it's usually a lot easier to get GW than GG in a two colored deck). In some cases you can do things like use nonland slots for mana fixing (eg Borderland Ranger ). Or you could use two forests and two plains and accept that you will have to mulligan 5% more often than a person whose deck costs three times as much.
Budget means budget. It means the deck by itself must be cheap. It doesn't even mean that you can't add rares to a deck - some of them are 10c apiece or you can get friends to give them to you for free - but on the flipside if you want to use a $5 uncommon you gotta question it. You can't assume that players are going to use any of these cards in another deck. You can't assume they have friends to trade with. You can't wave your hands over the mana base like some kind of Jedi and pretend that it has no cost.
Fortunately, I started my own budget deckbuilding blog a little while ago
Show
I completely agree.
You could also use selesnya keyrune. Sure, it isn't a land, but it gives you mana fixing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 6:19PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2011
|
Guys, for all the complaining about shocklands, the solution is really really simple. If you don't want to run them, don't. Run 2 Forests and 2 Plains instead. Or 4 Evolving Wilds, or 4 Guildgates. Yep it'll make your deck less consistent (or slower), but if you don't want to invest the $40 to smooth it out then that's a really obvious solution, less so than for other kinds of rares. For two color decks especially, this seems like a viable option.
The only way to 1) not run dual lands, and 2) not suffer because of it, is to play monocolor.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 7:47PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2012
|
Guys, for all the complaining about shocklands, the solution is really really simple. If you don't want to run them, don't. Run 2 Forests and 2 Plains instead. Or 4 Evolving Wilds, or 4 Guildgates. Yep it'll make your deck less consistent (or slower), but if you don't want to invest the $40 to smooth it out then that's a really obvious solution, less so than for other kinds of rares. For two color decks especially, this seems like a viable option.
The only way to 1) not run dual lands, and 2) not suffer because of it, is to play monocolor.
The point is you shouldn't call something a budget deck when it isn't. I could substitute cards in any big top tier deck but the article writers point was to make a functioning budget deck that isn't just a worse version of a better deck. He failed because the deck isn't budget.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 9:31PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2011
|
Guys, for all the complaining about shocklands, the solution is really really simple. If you don't want to run them, don't. Run 2 Forests and 2 Plains instead. Or 4 Evolving Wilds, or 4 Guildgates. Yep it'll make your deck less consistent (or slower), but if you don't want to invest the $40 to smooth it out then that's a really obvious solution, less so than for other kinds of rares. For two color decks especially, this seems like a viable option.
The only way to 1) not run dual lands, and 2) not suffer because of it, is to play monocolor.
The point is you shouldn't call something a budget deck when it isn't. I could substitute cards in any big top tier deck but the article writers point was to make a functioning budget deck that isn't just a worse version of a better deck. He failed because the deck isn't budget.
Again, there is no way to exclude these lands and not make the deck worse than it would otherwise be, unless you go monocolor. Those are the only options, and this thread is reminding me why BoaB was canned to begin with, because what's the point of complaining about this? Would you have been happy if he just put in four Guildgates instead? If so, do it yourself.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 9:52PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2012
|
Guys, for all the complaining about shocklands, the solution is really really simple. If you don't want to run them, don't. Run 2 Forests and 2 Plains instead. Or 4 Evolving Wilds, or 4 Guildgates. Yep it'll make your deck less consistent (or slower), but if you don't want to invest the $40 to smooth it out then that's a really obvious solution, less so than for other kinds of rares. For two color decks especially, this seems like a viable option.
The only way to 1) not run dual lands, and 2) not suffer because of it, is to play monocolor.
The point is you shouldn't call something a budget deck when it isn't. I could substitute cards in any big top tier deck but the article writers point was to make a functioning budget deck that isn't just a worse version of a better deck. He failed because the deck isn't budget.
Again, there is no way to exclude these lands and not make the deck worse than it would otherwise be, unless you go monocolor. Those are the only options, and this thread is reminding me why BoaB was canned to begin with, because what's the point of complaining about this? Would you have been happy if he just put in four Guildgates instead? If so, do it yourself.
If he cannot make a good deck without expensive cards then don't claim it budget as you're just lying. And there are other problems with the list.
No new rares and mythics. This is also silly because many rares and mythics are cheaper than some uncommons. As I stated earlier, tree of redemption is a 50 cent mythic. Rancor is a 2 dollar uncommon. I'd consider both budget, though, regardless of rarity. Budget does not mean pauper.
And if he cannot do a dual colored deck then don't. There were some mono colored decks in that list of mentions like the rat mono black deck.
|
|
|
