[Article] Eternal Europe: Getting into Legacy for $500 or Less

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

With Christmas (and the accompanying inflow of money for many a player) just over , it seemed like a good time to go into a few of the better decks that allow players to enter Legacy without costing an arm and a leg. Check it out and tell me what you think!

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/23338_Eternal_Europe_Entering_Legacy_For_500_Or_Less.html

[wcm8]

Good article as always. I think your writing on Legacy is a good example of quality over quantity.

[snappingbowls | ಠ_ಠ]

I read this article last night at, like 1 am, gotta say your my favourite SCG writer. People get these ideas in their heads about legacy and get scared... too bad, considering its such a wide open and diverse format. Great list of less expensive decks that can compete. Saw some kid on the FB plugin say none of these decks can compete today; couldn't help but laugh a little bit.

Thanks for not including burn, the deck loses to g2/3... and for someone breaking into the format they won't like constantly losing to Leyline of Sanctity, Chill and Batterskull.

[kiblast]

With the holidays around and Christmas generally leading to some capital to invest for the typical Magic player

So true, that I'm investing in Moats at the moment!:wink:

Nice article!

[snappingbowls | ಠ_ಠ]

So true, that I'm investing in Moats at the moment!

More than one... ?

[4eak]

Bravo, I love budget decks. I think having well-thought-out budget decks provides a gateway to Legacy new-comers. I'm glad to see your article.

Obviously, you only have so much time/space, but I'm surprised you didn't cover UR Delver. That deck can be built cheaply, and I believe it is significantly better than any of the decks you've listed.


Thanks for not including burn, the deck loses to g2/3... and for someone breaking into the format they won't like constantly losing to Leyline of Sanctity, Chill and Batterskull.

Those are awful examples. Chill? Last month, out of hundreds and hundreds of tournament placing Legacy decks around the world, Chill is to be found two times. Leyline of Sanctity was in ~16 decks. As far as I'm concerned, Batterskull is the only real example you've given, and it is a terrible one. The fact that you think Batterskull constantly beats properly played and built burn decks tells me that you haven't played much Burn/RDW/Sligh at a competitive level. Smash to Smithereens and Sulfuric Vortex (just 2 of the many common answers to be found in quality burn lists) are outstanding cards against Batterskull, as is burning out SFM and winning before they get to 5 mana. There are many barriers to the viability of Burn/RDW/Sligh, but Batterskull isn't really one of them.



peace,
4eak

[boneclub24]

Those are awful examples. Chill? Last month, out of hundreds and hundreds of tournament placing Legacy decks around the world, Chill is to be found two times. Leyline of Sanctity was in ~16 decks. As far as I'm concerned, Batterskull is the only real example you've given, and it is a terrible one. The fact that you think Batterskull constantly beats properly played and built burn decks tells me that you haven't played much Burn/RDW/Sligh at a competitive level. Smash to Smithereens and Sulfuric Vortex (just 2 of the many common answers to be found in quality burn lists) are outstanding cards against Batterskull, as is burning out SFM and winning before they get to 5 mana. There are many barriers to the viability of Burn/RDW/Sligh, but Batterskull isn't really one of them.



peace,
4eak

Thanks for this, saves me a bit of time :)

[Koby]

Good article.

I like that you didn't include Burn; and not for the reason that it has trouble in SB games. It's been the de-facto Legacy budget deck, and getting people to think of new decks is always encouraging.

So thank you for that!

[snappingbowls | ಠ_ಠ]

Those are awful examples. Chill? Last month, out of hundreds and hundreds of tournament placing Legacy decks around the world, Chill is to be found two times. Leyline of Sanctity was in ~16 decks. As far as I'm concerned, Batterskull is the only real example you've given, and it is a terrible one. The fact that you think Batterskull constantly beats properly played and built burn decks tells me that you haven't played much Burn/RDW/Sligh at a competitive level. Smash to Smithereens and Sulfuric Vortex (just 2 of the many common answers to be found in quality burn lists) are outstanding cards against Batterskull, as is burning out SFM and winning before they get to 5 mana. There are many barriers to the viability of Burn/RDW/Sligh, but Batterskull isn't really one of them.

Sorry? And you probably don't need to tell someone that "they saved you time"... wow, you both thought the same thing... now we know?

[Shawon]

I like the range of topics you cover in your articles, and how some of them are written as responses to what's going on and what's being said about Legacy (I'm thinking of your article in response to people saying that only blue decks are viable). To think a few years ago Legacy articles were usually deck X primers, metagame reports, ban/unban proposals, and of course I can't forget the 10000000 Legacy Intro articles.

Even though I despise Affinity (mainly Ravager) I'm always intrigued by any deck using non-Jace planeswalkers, especially Tezzeret 2.0. Since I don't really know Affinity, I can't really comment on the list itself. Mindbreak Trap and Dismember are both good calls though.

But I do know a thing or two about Smallpox decks (enough of the Pox namesake, no one cares about what Pox used to do in "the good ol' days," Smallpox does more of the work, it should get its due credit). The first thing I'll say is that 4 Urborgs are necessary. I know you probably had 2 to make the deck less than $500, but then again, you can at least swap the 4th Wasteland for a 3rd Urborg. Having 4 Urborg allows you keep hands with just one Urborg and a Wastelands and improves the consistency of going turn 2 Hymn/Smallpox. Muy importante.

I think you're wrong on Nether Void but I won't get into it because this is a budget article. But I will say that I have been running Beseech the Queen as Nether Void #2 that can also grabs lands and Extirpate/Pithing Needle g2 and g3. Pretty good so far.

Regarding your advice to your readers on how to make the Smallpox deck cheaper, I see removing Sinkhole as an excellent solution. Sinkhole isn't critical to the Smallpox strategy. It just adds a little more power to attacking from a specific angle (mana disruption). If removing it compromises the direction of the deck, then change the direction to that of The Rack, while keeping the Lilianas and Smallpoxes. But then again you might require Dark Confidant and that card is expensive, but less costly than Sinkhole!

[Tammit67]

While all of these decks are viable in a sense and budget, I can't help but feeling someone who went out and got one of these would feel disappointed, and here's why.

While you will be fine with any of these decks and you might do well now and then, you will not have a tier 1 deck nor do you have the cards to later help you build a tier 1 deck, with the notable exception of dredge which is strong deck regardless.

For instance, I started off with Solidarity, since I could only afford fetches and forces. Next was merfolk when i had wasteland money, then moved on to Dreadstill when I had enough for CBtop and duals/goyfs, Nassif's Ctop list when i had even more money to spend, TES when I finally had money for USeas, etc. Now I can build pretty much any blue deck besides reanimator.

I think it is important to include decks that have the ability to branch into something more competitive than just "we can use more urborgs". A lot of my friends liked the format and got into it buying junk lists and they have great difficulty building blue since the list share nothing except for goyfs, and even goyf isn't all that popular as he once was. A good deck to include as a Core of legacy staples would be UR delver, or even Mono U control.

I realize it is harder to put together a full list of decks that share major cards with the top decks, but at least 2 or so lists would really improve the article. Players won't stick with the format when they seemingly have to re-enter it just to be competitive because pox ends up being bad.

Other than that, GREAT article Carsten. I look forward to every piece you write. You are one of the few writers on SCG who knows what he is talking about in regards to legacy.

[Zilla]

Another great article, Carsten. I was just thinking the other day about viable budget options to suggest to a friend that's interested in the format, and it occurred to me that the vast majority of the cards in the UR Delver deck that have been placing well at recent SCG Opens are commons.

The most expensive cards in this archetype are optional: the deck is fully playable without Snapcaster Mage and Force of Will. Many lists even eschew Volcanics in favor of basics for better resilience to Wasteland.

I think you could build a fully competitive UR Delver list for around 200 bucks. The most expensive part of a budget list (outside of maybe a single Volcanic Island for flexibility in first turn plays) would be Fetchlands, and those are going to have long term usefulness to any player interested in Legacy anyway.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You can budget a lot of these decks out, actually. Goblins; just cut Wasteland and Port for Ancient Tomb and Mutavault. What the fuck are you doing with Wasteland and Port? Do you think this is 2006? The mana curve of this format is ridiculously low right now. Goblins is one of the mana hungriest decks around, even with an active Vial.

Hypergenesis, just drop Force for Unmask, run more black support. This might actually be superior anyway, since you can remove the Emrakul or Moat or Ensnaring Bridge or whatever from someone's hand.

It would be close to strictly better to cut 4 Gaea's Cradle from that Elves list for 4 Living Wish and move one to the board so you can find it when you need it, as well as just grab an Emrakul when you have tons of mana without having to draw into these situationally dead cards.. But then I mean for that matter I have no idea why it's maindecking the Fauna Shaman stuff, and skipping out on the big mana guys.

A lot of these really aren't great recommendations because they're limiting. Someone who spends four hundred dollars on Goblins has made a really big investment and is unable to do much else with those cards (really just the Vials and Wastelands are portable.)

Honestly I think people are better off building sub-optimal but scalable decks in Legacy if they're trying to get into the format than optimized but dead end decks. Even if a deck is top tier right now, it might not always be so and people want to build their collection to a point where they can switch decks as the metagame shifts. As such I would focus on lists that help you build up staples. Something like;

4 Scalding Tarn
4 Arid Mesa
2 Wooded Foothills
8 Mountain
3 Barbarian Ring

4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Goblin Guide
3 Figure of Destiny
4 Kargan Dragonlord
4 Blood Knight
3 Magus of the Moon

3 Umezawa's Jitte

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
3 Searing Blaze
3 Price of Progress

Is going to run you under $300 direct from SCG, and while not a name or a tier deck, is going to give you a pretty solid shot at winning any small local tourneys while building up your collection full of staples that go into other decks. You can piece together a few duals one at a time and either Goyfs or Forces and wind up with Delver Burn or Zoo; maybe you start just grabbing a single Taiga so you can run Ancient Grudge in the board.

Or budget-optional Maverick:

4 Windswept Heath
1 Savannah
4 Forest
2 Plains
3 Wooded Bastion
3 Horizon Canopy
2 Dryad Arbor
1 Wasteland
1 Dust Bowl
1 Kor Haven
1 Tower of the Magistrate

4 Green Sun's Zenith
3 Noble Hierarch
1 Birds of Paradise
4 Mother of Runes
3 Qasali Pridemage
1 Scavenging Ooze
4 Knight of the Reliquary
2 Eternal Witness
1 Kitchen Finks

4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Sylvan Library
2 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Parallax Wave

Will allow you to just squeak in under $500, and the sub-optimal pieces can be worked on and replaced one at a time.

[4eak]

In case anyone is interested, I've compiled about 20 budget Legacy decks in this thread. (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?20587-Budget-Decks-My-Attempts) Most of them are significantly cheaper than $500.


peace,
4eak

[GGoober]

I thought Dredge was dirt-cheap. What happened to the $50-100 deck that now became $400?? I guess Legacy cards have really skyrocketed. I know Bridge from Below went up unnaturally without any good reason (it's not like Dredge was completely dominating multiple tournaments).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Yeah, I actually remember when we would talk about $400 decks being the expensive ones. Ah, memory.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

@kiblast: I have an inkling why, I think. Let me know how things work out. Not exactly budget, though ;)


Thanks everybody for the kind words. Always warms my heart to hear my work is appreciated.

As to the criticism, I'll just go into the main points:

Tuning considerations: It shouldn't come as a surprise that I don't play budget decks. I'm a junky for blue control and combo and I have the cards to play those decks, so that's what I do. As such my experience with these lists is mainly from playing against them.
To be sure not to tell people to play decks that actually suck, I based myself on decks that had already performed well in actual tournament settings that also fit the criterion of being comparatively cheap to build. That's were the lists come from. This leads me directly to the first point of criticism:


Honestly I think people are better off building sub-optimal but scalable decks in Legacy if they're trying to get into the format than optimized but dead end decks. Even if a deck is top tier right now, it might not always be so and people want to build their collection to a point where they can switch decks as the metagame shifts.



While you will be fine with any of these decks and you might do well now and then, you will not have a tier 1 deck nor do you have the cards to later help you build a tier 1 deck, with the notable exception of dredge which is strong deck regardless.

For instance, I started off with Solidarity, since I could only afford fetches and forces. Next was merfolk when i had wasteland money, then moved on to Dreadstill when I had enough for CBtop and duals/goyfs, Nassif's Ctop list when i had even more money to spend, TES when I finally had money for USeas, etc. Now I can build pretty much any blue deck besides reanimator.

I think it is important to include decks that have the ability to branch into something more competitive than just "we can use more urborgs". A lot of my friends liked the format and got into it buying junk lists and they have great difficulty building blue since the list share nothing except for goyfs, and even goyf isn't all that popular as he once was. A good deck to include as a Core of legacy staples would be UR delver, or even Mono U control.

You're approaching entering a format from a totally different point of view than I do. If I planned to get into Legacy, I wouldn't want to play a deck that is a clearly suboptimal version of something better (same reason I made sure to pick decks that in nearly identical forms already do well). Maybe it's my inner spike but if I can't play an optimal list, I prefer not playing/playing a real fun deck. Whenever I'd lose a game to drawing my replacements instead of the card they're supposed to be, I'd be pissed and my fun would be ruined. Even imagining it during the deckbuilding process would probably discourage from even going to the tournament.
I can see where you're coming from, sure. It's much better for long term goals to start building towards a mainstream archetype and replace the cards I can't get yet with something cheaper. It also leads to a deck that loses not because you had a bad matchup or were outplayed but to being badly built (for a reason, to be sure, but still).

Let's take IBA's Maverick list for example. I wouldn't ever consider bringing that to a tournament. One of the central pieces, KotR, is weakened so much by not having a full set of Wastelands to lock the opponent out of the game after Knight resolves, that it makes the whole deck play out suboptimally. Playing a list like that is the equivalent of playing a Vintage Control deck without a Lotus. It won't come up all the time but it will lead to a lot of game losses that could be avoided by not playing a watered down version of a real deck. If you're doing that, you aren't playing to win, which, to me, is the whole point of going to a tournament in the first place.

On the other hand when running any of the lists in the article, you won't ever feel like your deck wasn't as good as it should have been. You might run into a hostile metagame* but you won't lose because you didn't have the cards to build your deck the way it should have been. Very different feeling/situation, at least to me.

Though, to be honest, most of these situations can be addressed through correct tuning. The inherent powerlevel of most Legacy decks is high enough that you can compensate for changes by changing a few slots to take care of the new threat/type of adversary - within reason, obviously. Dredge won't win in a meta where half the people have MD Leylines no matter how much you tune.


Obviously, you only have so much time/space, but I'm surprised you didn't cover UR Delver. That deck can be built cheaply, and I believe it is significantly better than any of the decks you've listed.


Another great article, Carsten. I was just thinking the other day about viable budget options to suggest to a friend that's interested in the format, and it occurred to me that the vast majority of the cards in the UR Delver deck that have been placing well at recent SCG Opens are commons.

The most expensive cards in this archetype are optional: the deck is fully playable without Snapcaster Mage and Force of Will. Many lists even eschew Volcanics in favor of basics for better resilience to Wasteland.

I think you could build a fully competitive UR Delver list for around 200 bucks. The most expensive part of a budget list (outside of maybe a single Volcanic Island for flexibility in first turn plays) would be Fetchlands, and those are going to have long term usefulness to any player interested in Legacy anyway.

UR Delver seems like a solid candidate for budgetizing and is something I considered but I was honestly unsure if the deck actually works fine with two or fewer Volcanics. I've found myself fetching for Duals a hell of a lot with the deck because you want flexible mana without dropping too many lands (Brainstorm fodder). Cutting Snapcasters and Forces from the deck on the other seems like it would make the deck a lot weaker or require significant restructuring (something I don't feel I have the experience to competently do, again see the paragraph about getting to the lists above). A ton of my wins in testing have come from Price of Progress, Snapcaster it back, you're dead.
If one of you (Zilla?) has a well tuned list that actually keeps the strengths of the non-budget list, I'd be happy to include it either next time or when I write another budget article*. Cutting Forces removes one of the biggest incentives for playing UR over straight burn imo because combo-opponents don't have to attempt to play around them any more.

* @4eak: Wouldn't want to use the list from your thread, for example. Having four Mountains has to make the mana horrible as far as mulligans are concerned and even four Islands seems extremely sketchy.



But I do know a thing or two about Smallpox decks (enough of the Pox namesake, no one cares about what Pox used to do in "the good ol' days," Smallpox does more of the work, it should get its due credit). The first thing I'll say is that 4 Urborgs are necessary. I know you probably had 2 to make the deck less than $500, but then again, you can at least swap the 4th Wasteland for a 3rd Urborg. Having 4 Urborg allows you keep hands with just one Urborg and a Wastelands and improves the consistency of going turn 2 Hymn/Smallpox. Muy importante.

I think you're wrong on Nether Void but I won't get into it because this is a budget article. But I will say that I have been running Beseech the Queen as Nether Void #2 that can also grabs lands and Extirpate/Pithing Needle g2 and g3. Pretty good so far.

I can definitely see where Urborg helps keeping sketchy hands though at the same time anything that has only Urborgs is a mulligan and you open yourself up to Wasteland quite heavily if you rely on Urborg to fuel your black mana needs of Mishra/Waste. It just felt like the least important piece of the puzzle. Removing Sinkholes would mean rebuilding the deck because the angle it tries to exploit changes and as mentioned above it isn't like I actually play these decks myself. Reid's list was something that proved its mettle in a high profile tournament and thereby felt like it gave me the biggest chance of picking a list that is actually good.
As to Nether Void, as mentioned in the article the card might be this deck's Armageddon and quite good. In that case I'm still convinced running it as a singleton is wrong because the deck has no library manipulation whatsoever. You'd either want 2-3 or do what you did and add some kind of tutor to search for the singleton when you need it.

Burn: I don't think burn is a particularly good deck, though it's fine (and no, it's definitely not cold to just Batterskull). Still, and especially now that UR Delver exists, which fits a very similar gameplan into a much more flexible shell, the deck just feels outdated to me. My main reasons not to include it were twofold, though. First there is the already mentioned fact that burn is the cliché budget deck - not really worth writing an article about - and second there's personal bias. I really don't understand why you'd want to play burn in Legacy when you could play something that does at least something exciting.

/edit: As to the wow 400 bucks, I remember when that was expensive thing - welcome to a popular format that uses cards that are more than 4 years old. It sucks but it's only going to get worse. Just check development on Vintage prices in the early 2000s if you don't believe me.

[4eak]

Dredge is no where near $400, even using SCG's inflated prices, it shouldn't be that much. That exact decklist can still be bought for $200-250. I'm not sure how Carsten came up with the prices (he may have been buying $30 foil/jap Careful study's). I realize that finding the real value of cards isn't easy (Ebay might be the most accurate), but even Bidwicket (http://bidwicket.com/) would be more accurate.

On a sidenote, that LEDless Dredge list melts my brain, yuck. It is even cheaper when you build it correctly.


UR Delver seems like a solid candidate for budgetizing and is something I considered but I was honestly unsure if the deck actually works fine with two or fewer Volcanics. I've found myself fetching for Duals a hell of a lot with the deck because you want flexible mana without dropping too many lands (Brainstorm fodder). Cutting Snapcasters and Forces from the deck on the other seems like it would make the deck a lot weaker or require significant restructuring (something I don't feel I have the experience to competently do, again see the paragraph about getting to the lists above). A ton of my wins in testing have come from Price of Progress, Snapcaster it back, you're dead.
If one of you (Zilla?) has a well tuned list that actually keeps the strengths of the non-budget list, I'd be happy to include it either next time or when I write another budget article. Cutting Forces removes one of the biggest incentives for playing UR over straight burn imo because combo-opponents don't have to attempt to play around them any more.

We have serious disagreements over FoW/Snapcaster in the deck. I suspect I'm in the minority, but neither are worthwhile maindeck, imho. I'm betting it is your bias towards playing FoW (and blue decks) rather than your experience and understanding of this particular deck which drives you to think FoW is what makes UR that much better than straight burn.

Try this:

// Lands - 18
2 Steam Vents
4 Island
4 Mountain
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Arid Mesa
4 Scalding Tarn

// Creatures - 11
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer

// Burn - 16
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Price of Progress

// Permission - 7
3 Spell Snare
4 Daze

// Card Quality - 8
4 Ponder
4 Brainstorm

// Sideboard
SB: 3 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 3 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 3 Tormod's Crypt
SB: 3 Submerge
SB: 3 Spell Pierce

You say that you don't actually 'play' these decks, which is why you are uncomfortable in reconstructing them. Unfortunately, that makes your advice much weaker. I think budget building requires a lot more effort.


peace,
4eak

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

I thought Dredge was dirt-cheap. What happened to the $50-100 deck that now became $400?? I guess Legacy cards have really skyrocketed. I know Bridge from Below went up unnaturally without any good reason (it's not like Dredge was completely dominating multiple tournaments).

It's funny how that happened. Basically Dredge staples (other than Bridge) went from dollar-bin rares, cheapo commons/uncommons, and a few money uncommons to everything in the deck being a dollar or more a pop, all because Dredge was touted as *the* budget deck. When I bought into Dredge about two years ago, you could get the majority of the deck at bargain bin prices. Thugs, Imps, Tribes, Moebas could all easily be found online for 5-10 cents each. But once enough people started buying into Dredge, stores started realizing they were losing money and adjusted the prices accordingly. The "expensive" pieces have also gone up as well. I remember griping about having an order (probably SCG) that was 25 dollars but only eight cards; sets of Ichorid and Therapy. Now that same order would probably be at least 50 dollars, if not more. Add in the fact that City of Brass has doubled in price and Tarnished Citadel goes for an astounding six bucks each (as opposed to 50 cents when I bought them) and it becomes clearer how Dredge got so expensive; *everything* in it that was cheap became, well, not so cheap.

Crazy stuff.


It would be close to strictly better to cut 4 Gaea's Cradle from that Elves list for 4 Living Wish and move one to the board so you can find it when you need it, as well as just grab an Emrakul when you have tons of mana without having to draw into these situationally dead cards.

Totally agreed here. The Living Wish package has worked out pretty well in my (limited) testing. Four Cradles in the mainboard is just overkill, and expensive overkill at that.

******

Great article, too. If you're ever short on material, it might not be a bad idea to expand upon this article and go deeper into certain "budget" archetypes, maybe with a survey of different builds, compare/contrast on their place in the meta, how much power per dollar you get, and maybe even the fun per dollar (though that would be tricky).

[kiblast]

I used to have a dredge deck sleeved up one year ago. I built 75% of that deck by trading away 3 Dark confidants (back when you could find them for 8 eur-12$), and then spent maybe 25 eur-35$ on the few sets I needed to complete it. Then I sold it for roughly 200$ and thought I had a nice deal. Then, one year later, I find that Dredge is worth 400$.



Sorry?

4eak is perfectly right. Burn's problem is obviously not Chill ( which I never saw since I re-started playing in 2008) nor Batterskull ( Shattering Spree comes to mind as is way more versatile and overall better than Smash to Smitereens, and good Burn lists play Sulfuric Vortex as a 3-4 of even maindeck). The main problem is that you have really hard time vs a wide amount of decks like Reanimator, Team Portugal, DeadGuy, Monoblack, Show and Tell, Chalice.decks, Dredge, Maverick etc etc

Also Carsten didn't put Burn in his list because the equation [Cheap deck for starters = Burn] is so well known that you don't really need to read it on SCG.

[Zilla]

UR Delver seems like a solid candidate for budgetizing and is something I considered but I was honestly unsure if the deck actually works fine with two or fewer Volcanics. I've found myself fetching for Duals a hell of a lot with the deck because you want flexible mana without dropping too many lands (Brainstorm fodder). Cutting Snapcasters and Forces from the deck on the other seems like it would make the deck a lot weaker or require significant restructuring (something I don't feel I have the experience to competently do, again see the paragraph about getting to the lists above). A ton of my wins in testing have come from Price of Progress, Snapcaster it back, you're dead.
If one of you (Zilla?) has a well tuned list that actually keeps the strengths of the non-budget list, I'd be happy to include it either next time or when I write another budget article*. Cutting Forces removes one of the biggest incentives for playing UR over straight burn imo because combo-opponents don't have to attempt to play around them any more.
I don't play Snapcasters at all in my build, and I run Forces in the side for combo, because they feel extremely weak against everything else. Those Forces could easily become Flusterstorm or even Spell Pierce and still fulfill the role pretty well, I think.

For reference, you can find my list (and my reasoning for the lack of Snapcaster and FoW) in this post here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22676-Deck-U-R-Delver&p=607503&viewfull=1#post607503). I'd feel comfortable dropping two Volcs from that list for two more basic Mountains, honestly. A lot of other people are already running only two, and I think you could get away with a singleton if you really had to.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's not playing to win to play an optimized bad deck, either in the near or long term.

It's not reasonable to expect someone to start Legacy off the bat buying all the expensive staples; it's a huge investment and should be done over time (if at all), so one has to approach this rationally;

If you have $400 to spend, how do you best optimize your chances of winning both in the near and long term?

It's not Affinity, which is a bad deck that's easily hated; nor Dredge, which is a good deck but also easily hated. If you want to win tournaments you want to begin working on a deck that will enable you to adjust to the changes in the meta and maximize your overall odds of winning.

It's actually wanting to have an optimized list regardless of anything else that's not playing to win, that's exhibiting scrubby behavior. You can build an optimal list of Mono-Red Goblins (whatever that means; unlike apparently everyone else I don't think it's "optimal" to just try to apply the exact same strategies from 2005-2006 that fell out of favor for a reason), but if the meta shifts a bit what do you have? The decklist is too dependent on internal synergies to adjust very much to swings in the metagame. Your desire to play an "optimized" list and thus avoid criticism of sub-par card choices has actually cost you a net chance of winning. You can continue playing your optimized deadend deck regardless of the metagame but that's not playing to win at all. Much better to play a build of Maverick or Delver Burn or whatever that's below par but tenable and flexible enough to be changed around to suit a different meta. Ultimately you would like to have a collection versatile enough that you can build whatever given deck you think is optimal at any given time (with the help of friends in all likelihood), but you have to get there first.

[DragoFireheart]

So how is one going to play a viable deck without dual-lands, wastelands, and Forces? It seems like it's unavoidable if one wants to actually start playing competitive Legacy without dropping a bunch of money in a deck.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Zilla/4eak: Running four Mountains in a non-monocolor deck seems like a structural flaw to me that I wouldn't want to have to deal with. So many bad draws hands just on the mana. The reason green and blue decks can get away with that kind of basic commitment is because either cantrips or manacreatures like Birds/Hierarch help you fix your mana if you only draw the Islands/Forests.
I'll give Zilla's list with 2 Volc, no Foothills (adding Arid Mesas and, I guess an Island) and some replacement for the Fireblasts (Probably a Ponder and a Preordain as placeholders until I think of something that comes closer to being like Fireblast) a few games to impress me. If it does, I'll calculate what that list would cost and include it next time if it qualifies.

I admit I might be wrong as far as FoW&Snapcaster are concerned, though Snappy was, as mentioned, very good for me when testing the non-budget version of the deck. FoW is admittedly quite weak in a lot of matchups but very important in certain other ones. Maybe the thread of it (plus something like Flusterstorm in the board) is good enough, though.

As far as not playing budget lists myself, why would I bring a budget deck to a tournament or spend time testing it when I can bring/tune/get better with my weapon of choice?(it isn't like I have infi time to devote to Magic)


It's not playing to win to play an optimized bad deck, either in the near or long term.

It's not reasonable to expect someone to start Legacy off the bat buying all the expensive staples; it's a huge investment and should be done over time (if at all), so one has to approach this rationally;

If you have $400 to spend, how do you best optimize your chances of winning both in the near and long term?

It's not Affinity, which is a bad deck that's easily hated; nor Dredge, which is a good deck but also easily hated. If you want to win tournaments you want to begin working on a deck that will enable you to adjust to the changes in the meta and maximize your overall odds of winning.

It's actually wanting to have an optimized list regardless of anything else that's not playing to win, that's exhibiting scrubby behavior. You can build an optimal list of Mono-Red Goblins (whatever that means; unlike apparently everyone else I don't think it's "optimal" to just try to apply the exact same strategies from 2005-2006 that fell out of favor for a reason), but if the meta shifts a bit what do you have? The decklist is too dependent on internal synergies to adjust very much to swings in the metagame. Your desire to play an "optimized" list and thus avoid criticism of sub-par card choices has actually cost you a net chance of winning. You can continue playing your optimized deadend deck regardless of the metagame but that's not playing to win at all. Much better to play a build of Maverick or Delver Burn or whatever that's below par but tenable and flexible enough to be changed around to suit a different meta. Ultimately you would like to have a collection versatile enough that you can build whatever given deck you think is optimal at any given time (with the help of friends in all likelihood), but you have to get there first.

Those decks may be easy to hate out but honestly, I've yet to see that kind of thing happen in a big enough way to actually make them bad choices. Even when Survival ran rampant, people refused to bring that much hate. I doubt Affinity or even Dredge ever reach levels of play to change that behavior in the player demographic. Essentially "it can be hated" is a useless argument as far as choosing your deck for Legacy is concerned, at least about 90% of the time. People don't do that, and rightfully so, most of the time. There are just too many narrow, easy to hate decks in Legacy to prepare sufficiently to hate out even a limited number of them as long as they aren't dominating the meta you're playing in. That's why you build decks that can either compete on natural power level (with maybe one obvious flaw that you can address with hate) or build something flexible enough that it can answer just about anything reasonably well without needing to resort to obvious hate.

/edit: Sure, these decks may be badly positioned in the meta for a time. News flash - the same is true for every other deck you might build. Just because you started investing into something that will turn into a harder to hate archetype once its finished doesn't mean you suddenly have the cards to build something totally different even if there is overlap.

I also totally disagree with what you believe people should do to get into the format - though I know some people here started that way. I actually got into Vintage that way during the mid-nineties and if I hadn't been lucky enough to a) be bad enough to not realize how bad my deck was and how much more I lost because of it and b) live at my parents as a teenager so that I was able to funnel a ton of money into Vintage staples (Drains, Dual, Moats, Power, etc - luckily much cheaper back then), I'd have given up on the format and Magic due to being totally disheartened. Losing because the cards in your deck suck because you can't pay for the good ones is incredibly depressing.
What you suggest boils down to playing a mediocre deck for at least year or two (looking at staple prices possibly more) so that you can slowly work your way towards an actual optimal deck. I'd probably have quit the format three times over before the first year ended if I followed that plan now that I actually realize how much playing the suboptimal cards cost me. I'd much prefer to have an actual good deck the power of which rises and falls somewhat depending on metagame tides but which I can play for those two years knowing I have a honed weapon not a flamethrower made by combining a lighter and a spraycan.
During that time, I can save up for/work towards whichever staples I want and start building a real deck (instead of a budget version of something) while trying to crush tournaments with something that's actually built to do so.

In short, I'd much rather play a structurally sound, good version of a deck that may not be in the ideal place in the metagame for a time than play a bad version of a deck that would be good if I had the money to build it.
One is something that works and loses if opponents are prepared for it (something that can happen to just about any deck), while the other other is a mediocre concoction that loses as much to its own imperfections as it does to the opponent. Nobody said playing budget is what you want to be doing if you're playing to win, but at least you're actually favored to win a tournament - as in your deck is one of the optimal choices - some of the time (when the meta is right for your deck) instead of being unlikely to ever do so because your deck naturally sucks.

[Tammit67]

It really helps to have a network of people to borrow from when you slowly buy staples towards a higher tier deck than stick with affinity in the meantime.

The way you outlined might be the best way -today- to get in the format, since the cost is so high, but a couple years back certainly getting staples wasn't so draining. And that's where I'm coming from.

Thanks for the responses!

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There are only a few optimized lists for any established deck that can be played on a relative budget, to be honest. It's pretty much just Elves, Dredge, and maybe Goblins if we're trying to stay away from utter dreck and under-developed decks (I'd like to throw MWC in there but I'm not really completely happy with any given list in the current meta, and I don't think it's established enough to attract the attention of someone just getting into the format). Elves and Goblins are of questionable goodness and easy to break; Dredge will straight up lose to a metagame that's prepared for it, and pretty miserably. These aren't good decks to keep showing up to a small weekly tournament with, because people will be aware that you always play the same deck and if you start to win they'll just hate it out.

The problem is that you're acting as if running an optimized list will obviously give you a better matchup percentage than playing a suboptimal list- actually, you're acting like optimized lists just win and suboptimal lists jsut lose, and that's just not true. You could straight up run a deck like Zoo with Ravnica duals instead of regulars, and Watchwolves instead of Tarmogoyfs, and I would wager that over the course of two months at local tourneys you would win a lot more frequently than with a deck like Dredge, no matter how optimal. Would you lose games because you're running sub-optimal cards? Sure. You'd lose more games with Dredge because you're stuck in a sub-optimal position; able to run only one deck which is easily beaten by about anyone that cares enough to put 4 Crypts or 4 Leylines or 4 Ravenous Traps or Surgical Extractions in the board, even assuming you had good matchups to start with.

You seem to have an emotional investment in running optimal lists. I'm saying that new players operating on a budget can't afford such a liability. Magic cards cost money which in the real world is a limited resource. If it's not worth it to a new player to invest $1000 in an optimized decklist, and it's probably not, then they should work on building towards that decklist a step at a time, and especially picking up the staples that can be switched around if they decide they'd rather run something else after all.

[GGoober]

I agree with Mon here. Anyone who is SERIOUS about playing Legacy but still has the need for the importance of budgeting will INVEST in the format. By investing I do not mean anticipating cards to go up and down and make monetary profit (i.e. what bulk of Modern speculation is all about), but by investing, I mean that when you know you put $50 in one card, it is going to be the card in a fairly optimal build that is going to win you more games than cost you games had you not played the card.

To truly build a budget deck, you would basically have to pick mono-colored non-blue decks and there aren't many of them out there that are tier 1.5 to tier 1. Quinn, Goblins, Elves are all great candidates that are within $250-$300 (i.e. very affordable good price for Legacy considering any other format is going to cost much more than this).

The main issue with Legacy is that people who are SERIOUS in the format and want to invest (the way I termed 'invest') would want to eventually get duals/FoWs/Wastes so they can build and play more decks, rather than the narrow decks you play. In that sense, the investment of $250-$300 into a cheap budget deck that win games is in fact a short-term investment because the true investment is a long-term one buying into duals and other staples. The overall long-term cost will be cheaper because you'll win more games with those staples/more-choices to build decks.

Note that what I've typed here is in COMPLETE disagreement with what Drago is asking. I am not stating that you need FoWs/Wastes/Duals to be successful in Legacy. I'm stating that a person investing in Legacy should acquire FoW/Waste/Duals because those build many other good decks, but are not neccesarily the key cards that win Legacy. Decks and players win Legacy, not individual cards. And sometimes decks without FoW/Waste/Duals will win tournaments depending on the meta.

[joemauer]

Wow you guys are overly critical of Mon's article.

A lot people are scared to get into Legacy because of the cost implications and he is offering sound advice how to get into competitive Legacy at a somewhat reasonable price.

Yes, if you a hardcore Legacy player than Merfolk or U/R delver would be much better starting points. However, if someone who plays only Vintage or Standard wants to get into Legacy so they can play at a random tourney here and there or just goof off with friends then this article is for them.

You can't factor every single Magic player's situation to be just like yours.

Perhaps someone would like a Legacy deck they can port over to Vintage(one day), then dredge might be there best bet.
Or a Legacy deck they can use for Modern then affinity would be ideal.

All the decks Mon's wrote about in his article are fun decks, as well as competive at one point or another. Nice article.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

There are only a few optimized lists for any established deck that can be played on a relative budget, to be honest. It's pretty much just Elves, Dredge, and maybe Goblins if we're trying to stay away from utter dreck and under-developed decks (I'd like to throw MWC in there but I'm not really completely happy with any given list in the current meta, and I don't think it's established enough to attract the attention of someone just getting into the format). Elves and Goblins are of questionable goodness and easy to break; Dredge will straight up lose to a metagame that's prepared for it, and pretty miserably. These aren't good decks to keep showing up to a small weekly tournament with, because people will be aware that you always play the same deck and if you start to win they'll just hate it out.

The problem is that you're acting as if running an optimized list will obviously give you a better matchup percentage than playing a suboptimal list- actually, you're acting like optimized lists just win and suboptimal lists jsut lose, and that's just not true. You could straight up run a deck like Zoo with Ravnica duals instead of regulars, and Watchwolves instead of Tarmogoyfs, and I would wager that over the course of two months at local tourneys you would win a lot more frequently than with a deck like Dredge, no matter how optimal. Would you lose games because you're running sub-optimal cards? Sure. You'd lose more games with Dredge because you're stuck in a sub-optimal position; able to run only one deck which is easily beaten by about anyone that cares enough to put 4 Crypts or 4 Leylines or 4 Ravenous Traps or Surgical Extractions in the board, even assuming you had good matchups to start with.

You seem to have an emotional investment in running optimal lists. I'm saying that new players operating on a budget can't afford such a liability. Magic cards cost money which in the real world is a limited resource. If it's not worth it to a new player to invest $1000 in an optimized decklist, and it's probably not, then they should work on building towards that decklist a step at a time, and especially picking up the staples that can be switched around if they decide they'd rather run something else after all.

I don't have an emotional investment in playing optimal lists, I have an emotional investment in not shooting myself in the foot before I'm competing in 100m dash.

As such I'd definitely run Dredge over Ravnica Zoo for two months straight, no question. The number of people that actually have sufficient hate to keep the deck down AND get paired against me AND draw the hate during those three turns that matter is bound to be lower than the number of people that kill me because I start the game at 14 instead of 20.
Just because a deck can be hated doesn't mean people actually do that. Dredge in particular is actually quite good at fighting through hate in the hands of a capable player and there is a significant number of games where opponents don't find one of their three or four hatecards (and that's a high estimate of actual hate judging by the decklists I see in Top 8s) through mulliganing and they just die before the hate ever turns up.

Sure Dredge can be hated out if people are ready for you. The same is true for Storm, Reanimator, or just about any other linear deck you'd care to name. Those decks still win events and top eight a lot.
It doesn't even end there. If people prepare for you specifically, you're going to lose and lose hard, independent of how much cash you've put into building your deck or which deck you've chosen to play. If you've managed to dominate the meta in your LGS to the point that people run a bunch of hate for you personally, I'd say your deck has been doing its job quite well. Probably well enough to pay for a different budget deck with a totally different focus to keep people guessing and show them that hating on you in particular is bad EV for them in the context of the whole event.
Because quite honestly, how many people actually go out of their way enough to make sure they cannot possibly lose a certain linear matchup? In my experience that number is vanishingly small, as long as the deck isn't totally dominating the field in question.
Taking the example of Dredge, the deck among the ones I suggested that is most likely to see enough hate to be in trouble because there are other gy-based decks. You're still likely winning game 1 (assuming people aren't at the point of MDing Leylines) and you still have a chance to beat people even if they draw their hate if you know your deck in and out. There's a reason the deck keeps performing at SCG Opens: people only dedicate significant hate to it if they're rather sure they'll face the matchup and if the hate isn't overwhelming, the deck can still win handily in the hands of a capable pilot (becoming that should be your goal if you're investing in the first place).

Now compare that to running a suboptimal version of a real deck. If your real deck isn't overwhelmingly powerful to begin with, you're going to lose a lot of percentages in every single matchup you face. As such, you're unlikely to be the favorite whatever opponent you're paired against. Why? Because otherwise the optimal version would be utterly crushing tournaments and dominate the format.
You have to keep in mind that by building a suboptimal version of something, you're taking that deck's matchups and making them worse across the board, be it because your mana is more fragile or because you're missing important angles of attack/defense or both.

In particular:

The problem is that you're acting as if running an optimized list will obviously give you a better matchup percentage than playing a suboptimal list- actually, you're acting like optimized lists just win and suboptimal lists jsut lose, and that's just not true
It sure as hell does. Running with a suboptimal list means that, in addition to losing to the already existing bad matchups any deck has in Legacy, you also lose good matchups because your deck is suboptimal and doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Yeah, sure, people won't run hate specifically to deal with you. That's because you're no freaking threat to them in the first place, though.

Heck, the matchups that are supposed to be good for the optimal list might be additional bad matchups for the suboptimal list because the cards you've cut for budget reasons might be and likely are important to win the supposedly good matchups (otherwise why would the optimal version run them).
Obviously a suboptimal list will win games, even matches. It will do so with a much lower frequency than the optimal list of the same deck would. That's all fine and dandy if the optimal list is something ridiculous like Flash that just crushes the rest of the format (I'd be perfectly fine with running a budget version of flash over any optimal cheaper deck - budget Flash is likely still better than that deck even if it's worse than optimal Flash) but if even the optimal list is only one of a number of solid contenders in the metagame, the suboptimal list will be significantly behind against any optimized list of any good deck it might face throughout a tournament. Why? Because the opponent's list is probably already built in a way to have the ability to put up a fight against the optimal version of your deck. If it's able to do that, it's likely favored against your suboptimal rendition of the same deck.

By running the optimal version of a strong linear deck, you get to run a deck that operates at maximum power level. As long as that deck is a viable choice for a Legacy tournament (and just about every list I presented other than Hypergenesis has proven to be a viable choice in a tournament by, you know, doing well in tournaments) and you know how to fight through light amounts of hate, you stand a solid chance of actually crushing opponent after opponent and winning the freaking event. Sure, at some point you might run into a player or even multiple players that are ready for you and lose. Shit happens. The same thing could happen to you with your all Asian foil TES or Stoneblade list.
In truth, though, the simple fact that most of the decks I presented aren't huge metagame presences (other than Dredge and that still isn't hated enough to keep it out of top eights anyway) basically precludes problems of that nature because I doubt all that many players are ready to give up 4+ SB slots to deal with fringe strategies. People don't do that, at least not in the tournaments I play in, watch or find decklists from. Why would they, they'd weaken their decks in more common matchups.

If you want something close to proof for what I'm saying check the number of budgetized versions of staple archetypes that have made it to the top 8/16 of tournaments and compare it to the number of cheap linear strategies with builds unaffected by financial concerns (other than being already cheap linear strategies) that have made it into top 8s/16s. You'll see that numbers overwhelmingly support my point of view.

[DragoFireheart]

Note that what I've typed here is in COMPLETE disagreement with what Drago is asking. I am not stating that you need FoWs/Wastes/Duals to be successful in Legacy. I'm stating that a person investing in Legacy should acquire FoW/Waste/Duals because those build many other good decks, but are not neccesarily the key cards that win Legacy. Decks and players win Legacy, not individual cards. And sometimes decks without FoW/Waste/Duals will win tournaments depending on the meta.

It seems unavoidable that in some combination, you will need FOW/Wastes/Duals. Especially duals. Not in local tournaments since rogue decks have the ability to thrive there, but larger tournaments may be more difficult. But yes, you are entirely correct about the player is the actual thing that wins and not any specific card.

[edgarps22]

Except you really don't need them per se. Wasteland is particularly useful and used in a variety of decks, but storm combo and dredge could care less about it or running it. Force of Will is needed if you want to win while playing blue, but hardly necessary to win in general. Duals while certainly useful can be worked around if you want to go budget. Take a look at Reid Duke's list from the invitational, or the various dredge decks placing top 8's and top 4's, obviously you don't NEED those to win, but they do help if those decks are not your style.

I have honestly done both of these ideas, building a meh version of a real deck and building towards it, it worked out well when i finally got the main pieces but not before then, and I have just flat built an optimized deck and gave it a go. Specifically I did an optimized version of Meandeck MUD in Legacy, Metalworker Welder shenanigans (REALLY fun deck) and Goblins. Goblins terrorized everyone and I took down a few tournaments, one through a mono white control deck with Tividar's Crusades, CoP Red's, Wraths, Swords, you name it, I still won. Having that Optimal list means that sure you punt the combo matchup, but win the matches you are supposed to win. Goblins has to be, in my opinion, one of the best decks to do this with. It is relatively cheap, can power through a lot of hate if built correctly (I ran 4 maindeck Stingscourgers and wow was that strong), and punishes weak hands of any deck in a hurry. Overall it is extremely consistent and powerful, without breaking the bank, the next I would suggest in that same vein is Zoo. Dredge is a weird example though because while it can just obliterate a tournament, if they are ready, or locally you become known as the Dredge guy and everyone boards for you, well it was fun while it lasted, but pick another deck, otherwise it smashes. Just my two cents.