Can you guys help me compile a list of all legacy viable monocolored or budge decks?

[Jon Stewart]

I would your help in compiling a list of legacy viable monocolored decks, budget and semibudget decks, and multicolored decks that can relatively easily be ported to a monocolored deck. I hope for this thread to serve as a reference to Stephen or anyone else that might later try to compile that list into an article of sorts, "Your Complete Guide To Legacy: The 50 Viable Budget Decks of Legacy".

Here's an excellent reference point pointed out by daimachi - http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?9729-[Help]ing-out-the-kids

Also be creative. For example, if you can adopt Dreadstill or Dreadtop to be completely monoblue or found a way for Eva Green to be monoblack and still viable (to borrow the nongreen elements of eva green that let it suceed where Sui Black failed), or if you for example found a way to make Kithkin or Fairies or Zombies or Vampires legacy viable, post it here. But there's no point in posting lists of the following decks, since they are so well known and anyone can easily look up monocolored versions of these decks in their official thread. And it's usually fairly easy to convert monocolored decks into budget decks with usually fairly intuitive or obvious replacements for the high priced cards...

Pox
Burn
Merfolk
Solidarity
Spring Tide
Aggro Elves
Combo Elves
Goblins
Sligh
MUC
MBC
Quinn/MWC
Fairies
Stax/MUD
Fairie Stompy
Dragon Stompy
Demon Stompy
Angel Stompy
Geddon Stax

Expanding this past monocolored to include multicolored semibudget decks as well, these are the decks that I'm already aware of...

Belcher
Affinity
LEDless Dredge

For now, all I really need are deck suggestions and ideas that I may have left off or neglected.

Update: Decks I Forgot...
Berserk Stompy (thanks Felidae)

[Carabas]

Imperial Painter is in no way a budget deck. Imperial Recruiters are currently running at about 120 dollars each. I'm betting anyone who could afford recruiters could afford to buy a few duals.

[Felidae]

You might add Berserk Stompy or Suicide, as you mentioned it should be easy to find their decklists in the Established forum.

[Forbiddian]

Most of those I wouldn't nearly consider budget. I mean, yeah, they're mono, but some of them cost more than Zoo and almost all of them cost more than Ad Nauseum.

Why is the restriction on mono colored decks and not based on cost. Going down this list:


Pox
Burn
Merfolk <-- and for all other blue decks: Force of Will (http://sales.starcitygames.com/carddisplay.php?product=14451)
Solidarity
Spring Tide
Hexmage Depths <--- Dark Depths is expensive (http://sales.starcitygames.com/carddisplay.php?product=41862)
Imperial Painter <--- Imperial Recruiter (http://sales.starcitygames.com//carddisplay.php?product=91807), others
Aggro Elves
Combo Elves
Goblins
MUC
MBC
Quinn/MWC (playable without Moat (http://sales.starcitygames.com/carddisplay.php?product=11120) I guess, but just the one copy turns it from a horrible deck to a very competitive deck)
Fairies

Ancient Tomb, City of Traitors, Chrome Mox cost as much as the dual lands.
Stax/MUD
Fairie Stompy <-- Sea Drake
Dragon Stompy
Demon Stompy
Angel Stompy
Geddon Stax <-- Ravages of War, lol (http://sales.starcitygames.com//carddisplay.php?product=16220)



The budget decks of the format:

Burn, Belcher, Kors, Pox, Ad Nauseum, Goblins, Merfolk, roughly in order of increasing cost.

EDIT:

...or found a way for Eva Green to be monoblack

I did think this was pretty hilarious. You're new here, huh?

[Jak]

I wouldn't classify Ad Nauseum as budget. Most list include duals and all of them have Chrome Mox, LED, and Chants. Mystical Tutor also recently went up in price.

[Gocho]

Isn't Ledless Ichorid budget deck?

I know that Undiscovered Paradise and Bloodghast are expensive, but you can play without them and the deck works fine.

MonoGreen Chalice Aggro is monocolored, but isn't budget.

[Pastorofmuppets]

Isn't Ledless Ichorid budget deck?

I know that Undiscovered Paradise and Bloodghast are expensive, but you can play without them and the deck works fine.

MonoGreen Chalice Aggro is monocolored, but isn't budget.

Bloodghast dredge is bad. And he's saying budget OR monocolored. You guys need to lrn2 read.

[Forbiddian]

Bloodghast dredge is bad. And he's saying budget OR monocolored. You guys need to lrn2 read.

Actually, he says "monocolored or budge decks"

But I'm sure everyone is assuming he means, "monocolored (budget) decks" which makes a lot more sense than making a list of expensive mono colored deck alongside cheap multicolored decks. That makes no sense.

[Jon Stewart]

I'm sure everyone is assuming he means, "monocolored (budget) decks" which makes a lot more sense than making a list of expensive mono colored deck alongside cheap multicolored decks.

No as I made clear in the OP, I'm refering to both monocolored decks and budget decks. As I will explain, it's easy to port the majority of monocolored decks into more budget decks that still remain viable.


Why is the restriction on mono colored decks and not based on cost. Going down this list:


Pox
Burn
Merfolk <-- and for all other blue decks: Force of Will (http://sales.starcitygames.com/carddisplay.php?product=14451)
Solidarity
Spring Tide
Hexmage Depths <--- Dark Depths is expensive (http://sales.starcitygames.com/carddisplay.php?product=41862)
Imperial Painter <--- Imperial Recruiter (http://sales.starcitygames.com//carddisplay.php?product=91807), others
Aggro Elves
Combo Elves
Goblins
MUC
MBC
Quinn/MWC (playable without Moat (http://sales.starcitygames.com/carddisplay.php?product=11120) I guess, but just the one copy turns it from a horrible deck to a very competitive deck)
Fairies

Ancient Tomb, City of Traitors, Chrome Mox cost as much as the dual lands.
Stax/MUD
Fairie Stompy <-- Sea Drake
Dragon Stompy
Demon Stompy
Angel Stompy
Geddon Stax <-- Ravages of War, lol (http://sales.starcitygames.com//carddisplay.php?product=16220)


From your line at the start of your post "Why is the restriction based on color rather than cost" it seems that you knew precisely what I meant. So I don't know why you act like you didn't.

And if you must know why. For one thing, it's a hell of a lot easier to make a budget version of a deck that is already monocolored than it is to make a multicolored deck monocolored.

From your examples...

Armageddon is pretty much just as good as Ravages of War. So is Cataclysm. There's no reason it's essential that both be played.

Sea Drake while awesome isn't what makes Fairie Stompy as a deck tick. It's plausible to replace that one creature with Pestermite or Weatherseed Fairies or such without the deck falling apart.

As you acknowledged, Quinn is playable with Humility instead of Moat.

Dark Depths isn't all that expensive either, and it's likely that most Extended players and any Standard players from Coldsnap already have some copies.

FoW really isn't that expensive and you can still pick up a playset for cheaper than it costs to buy just two duals. And if absolutely needed, it's not as if playing 4 Spell Pierce or something because you can't afford the 4 FoW is suddenly going to make the whole deck garbage. It maybe suboptimal, but it would still be functional.

And no, a legacy viable monoblack spin off of Eva Green isn't the same as Suicide Black. Because, as it currently stands, Suicide Black isn't legacy viable. It hasn't been in years. And I believe that for it to be, it needs to borrow all of the elements of Eva Green that makes the deck function well sans the Tarmogoyfs (for obvious reasons).

Hence, the deck would share 85-90% of the business spells with Eva Green and maybe 30% of the business spells with traditional Sui Black.

Anyways, the point is to first make a list of all monocolored, budget decks, and multicolored decks that can easily be transformed into functional monocolored decks, and then figure out how to make them all budget.

[(nameless one)]

I find that if you replace Tarmogoyf with Withered Wretch and Maelstrom Pulse with some form is discard/removal or card advantage from the Eva Green list, it would work just as fine.

Although less fetchlands means Tombstalkers costs more to an extent.

[FoolofaTook]

LED-less Ichorid can be purchased for less than $150. It's the cheapest really competitive deck, as in might win a 40+ person tourney, in the format.

[4eak]

We currently have a budget tournament running on the site. If you are interested, give it a couple weeks, and you'll see a full account of the decklists. Part of the "budget" issue is knowing where you draw the line. What is the cap on a budget deck? There is a huge, huge difference between what you can build with $50 and $150 (some people consider $150 to be budget).

You'd be surprised by:


The difference in what you can build with just 10 dollars more.
How much prices change (making your list outdated very quickly) -- even in short periods of time (and we aren't talking about overnight price jumps for just a few cards like Flash or Natural Order), some of the decks in our current tournament have doubled in value (in just a number of weeks).
The difference between targeting a budget metagame and the Legacy metagame.
The difference in specific Legacy metagames, whereby many budget decks are only conditionally viable (assuming X,Y, Z are in the metagame, and that A,B, C are not in the specific metagame).
The lack of scaling in budget decks, whereby the best budget decks at $50 may have no connection to the best budget deck at $75.
The number of decks which hit their ceiling of viability at a budget level, whereby they can be competitive in a budget setting, but even with more money, would never evolve to be a competitive deck in regular Legacy.
The lack of testing in this area -- few people have experience building successful budget decks.


Variables such as the "cap" on our budget and the exact metagame we are targeting are extremely influential. For example, viability of aggro decks will vary greatly depending on the amount of combo and creature control we see in a metagame. Overall, the answers to "Budget" questions will vary wildly based upon these contextual concerns.

The scaling and ceiling issues I mentioned deserves some fleshing out. Many people might want a budget deck that will continue to effectively scale up as they add more money to it over time. You don't want to be buying cards which are pretty good at a budget level (e.g. Bosium Strip), but absolutely terrible at the normal competitive Legacy level. You want to buy staples, yeah? This is where it becomes more difficult to consider. You may actually want to play a budget deck which isn't the best deck you can buy for the money simply because you plan on upgrading it, and you want your initial investment to be relevant and not be wasted.





peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

I would much rather play Vampire Nighthawk in place of Tarmogoyf in the maindeck and Leyline in the sideboard, than play Withered Wretch in place of Tarmogoyf MD to be frank.


We currently have a budget tournament running on the site. If you are interested, give it a couple weeks, and you'll see a full account of the decklists. Part of the "budget" issue is knowing where you draw the line. What is the cap on a budget deck? There is a huge, huge difference between what you can build with $50 and $150 (some people consider $150 to be budget).

You'd be surprised by:


The difference in what you can build with just 10 dollars more.
How much prices change (making your list outdated very quickly) -- even in short periods of time (and we aren't talking about overnight price jumps for just a few cards like Flash or Natural Order), some of the decks in our current tournament have doubled in value (in just a number of weeks).
The difference between targeting a budget metagame and the Legacy metagame.
The difference in specific Legacy metagames, whereby many budget decks are only conditionally viable (assuming X,Y, Z are in the metagame, and that A,B, C are not in the specific metagame).
The lack of scaling in budget decks, whereby the best budget decks at $50 may have no connection to the best budget deck at $75.
The number of decks which hit their ceiling of viability at a budget level, whereby they can be competitive in a budget setting, but even with more money, would never evolve to be a competitive deck in regular Legacy.
The lack of testing in this area -- few people have experience building successful budget decks.


Variables such as the "cap" on our budget and the exact metagame we are targeting are extremely influential. For example, viability of aggro decks will vary greatly depending on the amount of combo and creature control we see in a metagame. Overall, the answers to "Budget" questions will vary wildly based upon these contextual concerns.

The scaling and ceiling issues I mentioned deserves some fleshing out. Many people might want a budget deck that will continue to effectively scale up as they add more money to it over time. You don't want to be buying cards which are pretty good at a budget level (e.g. Bosium Strip), but absolutely terrible at the normal competitive Legacy level. You want to buy staples, yeah? This is where it becomes more difficult to consider. You may actually want to play a budget deck which isn't the best deck you can buy for the money simply because you plan on upgrading it, and you want your initial investment to be relevant and not be wasted.


Excellent post. You raise a lot of good questions to which there presently are no real answers.

I think that once we compile a list of just what all the options we can look at are, in terms of budget decks, we would be in a far better position to evaluate each of those factors.

Once we have say, the 50 or so potentially strong budget decks, we can work on rating them based on just how budget they really are, their vulnerabilities against specific archeatypes (combo or ichorid for example), and their scalability (all the examples I offered up above of already legacy competitive decks that can be slightly modified to be more budget would be extremely scalable for obvious reasons).

Yes people's budgets vary and card prices fluctuate somewaht. But considering that we're talking about a format where most decks cost in the ballpark of over a thousand dollars, we can probably consider anything under $300 (as evaluated by magictraders.org prices) to be semibudget, and anything under $100 to be very budget. And then leave it up to players to decide just how cheap they want to go.

And for the sake of the discussion if I wasn't clear in the OP, I'm referring to budget decks that are viable against a number of common competitive decks, not budget decks that are viable only against other budget decks. The point is to offer players entering the format viable budget options that can do reasonably well in legacy, the point is not to create an entirely seperate format that consists entirely of budget decks.

But for right this moment, all I'm mainly looking for is suggestions as to any deck options or monocolored decks I may have missed, or left out.

[4eak]

This is such a monumental task. I think it is a worthy task though. It would be extremely valuable to have a resource for newer and poorer players. Helping others to overcome the cost-barrier to this format should be one of our goals. Why is this such a difficult task?

Anytime you place artificial limits on the cardpool or construction, you've created a new format. The $50 budget is its own format, the $100 budget is a different format, etc. Even if you want to say that your opponents don't have the same handicap, it remains that the answers will vary (very widely) between these different formats. Also, restricting yourself to a budget actually increases the total viable cardpool available in deck construction, which means that you'll really want to consider not just many 'ported' decks, but completely unheard-of and unused combinations of cards. I think you'd do a great disservice to the "budget" question to pigeon-hole the answers into 50 potential ported decks, especially as these are often just "guesses" and not tested approaches.

You shouldn't be compiling a list until you've provided more context (as you really are comparing many, many different formats). You'll actually want a list/table of contexts. I'm also saying you can't compile a list without testing. To do any less would make a very poor guide. Obviously, you can't evaluate all contexts, but the question is just too broad at this point not to break it down into smaller questions.

Take a basic gauntlet that you want to target, and build/test against it. The DTBF offers a good gauntlet, but if you consider that too large, then take a strong representative selection. If I had to choose a smaller gauntlet to help represent how a deck performs against the general archetypes, I'd suggest:


ANT
Zoo (Aggressive Fish)
Counterbalance Thresh (Control Fish)
Goblins (Combat synergy, doesn't mirror Thresh or Zoo too closely either)

Obviously, this is far from complete, but it would be a decent gauge. From there, you'd want to test a budget range. I'd probably break it up something like this:


$50
$100
$150
$200

Test a list of the budget decks at $50, then at $100, and so on. This would be much more accurate. This would also give people ideas of how decks scale as you upgrade cards and a glimpse at the ceilings.

I actually do have some experience with this problem. We had a lengthened banlist in the budget tournament for a reason (EtW/Tendrils banned). Storm combo is exceptionally powerful within the budget constraint (and not just against other budget decks). Without a doubt, it is the best deck you can build within $100 dollars (unless you wish to choose a more specific metagame than the universal Legacy meta). After that, I'm not as convinced, but I will admit that Storm is a very strong contender at any limit.

Last point, it is all too easy to assume monocolor decks are the best option under a budget. There are obvious reasons why we might prefer monocolor while building on a budget. This assumption, however, is not accurate. You don't have to have dual-lands and fetches to play a multi-color deck in Legacy. Some of the best budget decks you can build will be multi-color. There are extremely undercosted ($-wise) cards in every color, sometimes there is cross-color synergy as well, plenty of ways to smooth mana-color curves, and it is often worth bending your budget deck's construction to splash for those cards.





peace,
4eak

[dahcmai]

Missed this thread it seems.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?9729-[Help]ing-out-the-kids


It's a decent collection of the budget decks. I made it originally to help out the local kids who can't afford the big cards, but it turned into a good resource of budget decklists.

[Jon Stewart]

Thanks for the excellent link. It seems this has been attempted before. I edited the OP and posted the link there.

4eak, what you're proposing sounds like creating seperate formats.

Where one playgroup that wants to restrict their meta to $200 decks gets a reference of what their meta would look like and what decks would do well in their specific sub $200 meta.

That's not what I'm talking about. I want to compile decks that can hold their own against normal $1000+ legacy decks. I want these decks to be decks that people can build and take to their standard legacy tournament and do well in. So there is no point in fracturing the decks into price ranges right now.

Right now, it's about compiling the decks that can do well in legacy, and don't cost an arm and a leg. Their specific prices can be calculated and added in later.

Basically, you're suggesting a bottom up approach, which is what this budget tourney is doing. I'm attempting a top down approach (taking what's already proven to work and budgetizing it) because it makes for lists that are far more easily scalable as players get better cards and can build their deck up into a normal legacy deck if they wish.

On that note, we have the first suggested monocolored budget variant for a legacy favorite, Dreadstill.



If you really wanted to try a Dreadstill list that was only blue this is what I think you'd start with:

// Lands
14 Island
4 Mishra's Factory
3 Wasteland

//Creatures
4 Phyrexian Dreadnought
2 Vendillion Clique
2 Sower of Temptation

//Spells
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
3 Spell Snare
2 Counterspell
4 Stifle
2 Trickbind
4 Standstill
2 Echoing Truth
2 Powder Keg

The 4 removal slots are just an idea, really you could go a bunch of different ways there as long as you can remove Tarmogoyf, Counterbalance and tokens.

[herbig]

Here it is:

Merfolk

[Jon Stewart]

Here it is:

Merfolk

Haha. Hilarious.

P.S: Geddon Stax, Goblins, Dragon Stompy, Fairie Stompy, Pox, Burn and a crapton of other decks would like to have a word with you out back.

[4eak]

I suppose we may simply disagree on how much accuracy is enough. Your top down approach makes a lot of assumptions and misses a lot of the decks which would have been strong (if not better) paths to take, paths that you would likely find with the bottom up approach. Even if you were looking to maximize staples and minimize dead-weight buys in the process, or maximize scalability and minimize ceilings, the bottom-up approach is still the best. You'll actually have some proof for it.

Top down approaches aren't even all that easy for experts in their own archetypes. And, few have the knowledge to build the top-down list correctly. For example, you put Imperial Painter on the list...

Making random lists is exactly that, random lists. Even the current [Helping the kids] thread is a straight hodge-podge (albeit, better than nothing). You'd do better if I just took the full deckcheck Legacy database, found the prices for them, and spit out a list of the decks which made the cut (which I can do if we need).


4eak, what you're proposing sounds like creating seperate formats.

I'm not proposing some creation of separate formats; I'm telling you that the answer to your question must assume it and be tested as I suggested.


Where one playgroup that wants to restrict their meta to $200 decks gets a reference of what their meta would look like and what decks would do well in their specific sub $200 meta.


There absolutely is a point to "fracturing the decks into price ranges right now".

Asking [what $200 decks perform best against the universal Legacy metagame?] is a very different question from [what $100 decks perform best against the universal Legacy metagame?]. If you read what I said closely, you'd see that I expect the decks to perform against a true legacy gauntlet, not against other budget decks.

Another problem problem, those decks which are 'proven to work' are not proven to work on a budget. To compile the list is still just guesswork. Of course, I can fully appreciate the scaling sentiment, which I clearly laid out in my first post.

And, while you may not find it so important, I think we should take more seriously the fact that opinions about what constitutes a "budget" deck vary enough that a bottom-up approach will satiate a larger spread of readers.

For example, your Dreadnought list is not what I call 'budget'.


4 Mishra's Factory 0.81 3.24 3.24
3 Wasteland 12.87 38.61 41.85
4 Phyrexian Dreadnought 24.52 98.08 139.93
2 Vendilion Clique 4.11 8.22 148.15
2 Sower of Temptation 3.80 7.60 155.75
4 Ponder 0.57 2.28 158.03
4 Force of Will 24.06 96.24 254.27
4 Daze 2.17 8.68 262.95
3 Spell Snare 3.31 9.93 272.88
2 Counterspell 0.18 0.36 273.24
4 Stifle 11.28 45.12 318.36
2 Trickbind 0.60 1.20 319.56
4 Standstill 5.82 23.28 342.84
2 Echoing Truth 0.12 0.24 343.08
2 Powder Keg 2.46 4.92 348.00

Cost = 348.00

It is certainly cheaper than the multicolor versions, but it still has a hefty price-tag. There are full-blown competitive Legacy decks, with proven viability (and easily stronger than this deck), which I can build for less than the price of your Dreadnought list. I can build Merfolk, or Goblins, or even a fairly strong ANT list for that price. This is just another example of why you want to be methodical in this process.

You are oversimplifying the question, making large assumptions, basing the list off your own personal experience (which won't be enough to validly answer the "budget" questions posed by newcomers and poor players), and thus the answer may not be as relevant as you would hope. This is the sort of question which a group of veteran players must wrangle for an extended period of building/testing to even be in the right ball-park. The answers, obviously will never be perfect, but we really do want newcomers/poorer players to see how much their dollars will scale into viability, and we need to do testing in a range of contexts for that.

The worst part is that metagame data becomes irrelevant pretty quickly as the metagame evolves and as card prices fluctuate. For this reason, I consider the problem solvable for only small periods of time. I could almost advocate a top-down approach just because of that. I think top-down conclusions, which are already less relevant than bottom-up conclusions, would lose their meaning even more quickly though. It would probably be better to create pricing and metagame analysis tools or write a guide to the principles of budget-deck construction in general, as these would retain meaning over time.





peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

Like I mentioned, I value scalability. I would much rather players invest in building a deck that they can slowly upgrade into a tier one/two deck, than having them build a deck that can't ever be upgraded into an established legacy deck or archeatype.


The $50 budget is its own format, the $100 budget is a different format, etc. Even if you want to say that your opponents don't have the same handicap, it remains that the answers will vary (very widely) between these different formats. Also, restricting yourself to a budget actually increases the total viable cardpool available in deck construction, which means that you'll really want to consider not just many 'ported' decks, but completely unheard-of and unused combinations of cards.


$50
$100
$150
$200

Test a list of the budget decks at $50, then at $100, and so on. This would be much more accurate. This would also give people ideas of how decks scale as you upgrade cards and a glimpse at the ceilings.

I actually do have some experience with this problem. We had a lengthened banlist in the budget tournament for a reason (EtW/Tendrils banned).


If you think you would have better luck with what you're proposing and that players would be better off building decks based on unheard of or unused budget combos, I highly encourage you to start a different thread with those goals in mind.

Figure out which sub $50 decks would beat all other sub $50 decks. Then figure out which sub $100 deck would beat all other sub $100 decks, set up distinct banned card lists for each format if you wish and on and on.

It does increase diversity and seems useful to playgroups that wish to restrain themselves to certain budget levels, so I encourage you to start a seperate thread to figure out precisely that.

[4eak]

I really don't think my suggestion is so far off from what you want and need. You don't like starting out with the price breakdown or find it necessary to gauge unorthodox decks in a metric. But, you could easily be wrong about it. Hear me out yet again please.


Figure out which sub $50 decks would beat all other sub $50 decks. Then figure out which sub $100 deck would beat all other sub $100 decks, set up distinct banned card lists for each format if you wish and on and on.

I'll say it as clearly as I can: You would not be testing budget decks against other budget decks. You need to test against a somewhat representative Legacy gauntlet -- I've suggested a small one to make it easy. This is what I'm talking about:

http://imgur.com/l2894.png

Your opponents are not restricted by the budget. More importantly, you'll at least have some context. Dividing cost levels makes perfect sense. Not everyone is going to call $350 a budget deck. This will answer a much wider range of questions.

You'll be able to answer questions like [what $100 decks perform best against the universal Legacy metagame?] with some evidence. When you ask questions like this one, you've essentially limited the format into a new one.

Some people are going to have different amounts of money they are able to invest in the format. From the buyers perspective, they'll want to know how much viability they are buying at a certain price level, and this is what fracturing the decks into price ranges helps solve. Obviously, it doesn't just let you compare decks within their own cost range (which is what the buyer will often be asking), but you can also see how decks at different price ranges compare to others.

The point is that Merfolk at $50 dollars is very different from Merfolk at $150 dollars. This gives you a way to compare the relative strength of decks built at different cost levels. You'd even be able to draw a viability to investment ratio. It gives your viewers options, it proves how decks will scale, it shows what ceilings may exist, and helps us consider paths of investment efficiency. It also gives you a metric by which to compare the many unorthodox decks available at each cost level (which doesn't necessarily mean you are wasting money) to what you might consider more orthodox budget choices.

It is simply too presumptuous to think that the top-down approach gives accurate answers about scaling and deck viability. It doesn't necessarily help players develop their card pool in the most money-efficiency way either. Again, there could easily be several unorthodox decklists which are better at building your cardpool (generally, we might call it 'goodstuff.dec'). I think you'll find that lots of monocolor budget decks that will buy cards that won't be used in the end product, and I think you'll find tons of monocolor budget decks which are much less viable than you might initially presume.





peace,
4eak