The One Last Thing Holding Legacy Back And How This Site Can Fix It! [Archive]

Clark Kant

12-23-2007, 10:18 AM

I asked numerous players over the past few months who have tons of old cards and a clear deep interest in magic why they don't have any legacy decks though they play standard decks often and frequently attend the stores Standard tournaments.

The answer that I almost invariably get is that Legacy is too expensive to build decks in because of the required duals and fetchlands in all of the top decks. While Wizards successfully dealt with the true degenerate brokeness found in type 1, they really didn't make the format that much easier to enter. That's where we come in.

We can easily make legacy the most played and most popular format in magic, rather than one where the best a city with 2 million people has to offer for the legacy community is a one time weekly playgroup of four people where as extended and standard have players by the boat loads.

Standard is pricier than ever thanks to Tarmogoyf and Thoughtseize. Legacy meanwhile is more diverse than ever before as the metagame at worlds, or just looking at this forum proves.

All that we need to do to make legacy popular is to completely shatter and decimate the myth that you need to spend a lot of money to build competitive decks in legacy. And we here at the source are at a better position than any other group of legacy players to do just that.

I see three things that we should do as a community, and as a site that could completely shatter the myth that legacy needs a lot of money to enter.

1.) A subsection of CANG's contest just for budget legacy decks. Nothing gets people's creative juices flowing like a good contest.

2.) Adding a subforum to this site entirely devoted to discussing, refining and tweaking strong budget decklists called "Competitive Budget Decks In Legacy." What better place for such a forum than at The Source, the leading and most talked about site for legacy players everywhere featuring the best deck builders in Legacy. As they say, if you build it, they will come. If you have a forum dedicated just to budget decks, people will eagerly post there budget decklists there that previously had no where to go on this site. More on that below.

3.) Based on decks developed on that subforum, us legacy players writing a bimonthly article about legacy featuring one of the top tier budget decks and contacting Wizards to get that article posted up on magicthegathering.com (a site with millions of visitors every week). We can pick out which decklists warrant an article through a discussion thread in the Adept Q&A forum asking for the best/most viable budget deck in legacy.

What's that you say, you don't think there are many strong viable budget decks in the format. Here's an incomplete list of precisely such decks that say that you're wrong...

Ravager Affinity (You can get a playset of Ravagers for under $20 on ebay these days, and the rest of the needed cards are all commons, with a couple of uncommons, just buy a playset of all of Mirrodans and Darksteel's commons on ebay for $15 and you're most of the way there).

Ichorid - Opting to play City of Brass and Gemstone Mine in place of the duals to give you the freedom to play Gamble as well.

Death and Taxes

Mono Black Pox

Dragon Stompy

Budget 43 Lands

Budget Goblins

Mono Blue Control - Has the huge advantage of letting you maindeck both Back to Basics, Veldalken Shackles and the Counterbalance + Top combo. Force of Will costs a little more than half of what Tarmogoyf costs. But it's a staple that will never ever ever be rendered cheaper or useless so it's a fantastic investment as a card. And no I don't htink it is absolutely needed to be played either when you're starting out. You can do fine without FoW and later, once you have some cash buy it later.

Belcher Combo

Mono Red Burn

Fairie Stompy - Sea Drake and FoW are by no means absolute neccesities for this deck. You can instead run a full playset each of Trinket Mage, Phyrexian Dreadnought, Stifle, Trickbind, Brainstorm and Ponder in place of running Chalices, and whoop ass even more effectively.

Suicide Black - With Duress instead of Thoughseize and with Wastelands slots replaced with Mishra's Factory.

Mono Black Control - Train Wreck without the green splash

Aggro Elves

Food Chain Elves

Spring Tide - FoW is not absolutely essential, and even with it, the deck could be built for around a $100.

Mono Red Sligh

9 Land Stompy

Budget Reanimator

Angel Stompy

Parfait - Mono White Control

Black Stompy (Deck using Tomb/City/Trinisphere or Chalice to play cards like Negator).

White Weenie

Budget Long Without LED

And that's just what's already out there, we could easily create a whole slew of decks specifically for the budget forum. Decks such as...

Random Green Aggro (Plays bigger critters than 9 Land Stompy, Llanowar Elves, Iwamori of Open Fist etc).

Any Deck Built Around Blood Moon, Magus of the Moon, and Price fo Progress

Elven Tooth and Nail? Rebels? Sneak Attack? Stasis? Trix? Natural Order? Monoblue Dreadnought?

Does this mean preexisting threads for budget decks like Affinity would have to be be moved? No, not in the least, all this would mean is that there would be a seperate thread for Affinity in the "Competitive Budget Decks In Legacy" forum. And in those decks, cards like Thoughtseize that are completely unneccesary and just add cost to the deck wouldn't be included on the posted lists. Of course people can discuss the pros and cons of Duress vs. Thoughtseize or how the deck changes without Sinkhole or Wasteland and instead having to focus on discard, but the key is, none of the posted decklists can include Thoughtseize over Duress. Thoughtseize isn't alone. In fact, if you set aside Tarmogoyf and FoW (both cards well under $100 that decks could be built around Stompy and BBS for one, and are such irreplacable staples that we will encouraging even budget players to get them) every single uber expensive card has disadvantages that make is sometimes inferior to it's budget alternatives. And Goyf is a card that virtually every standard and extended player already has anyways.

I'm very serious. If we just give all magic players (through articles on magicthegathering.com on decklists developed and tested on this site), access to a huge variety of strong decks in Legacy that can be built on a budget, we could draw so many more players into the format. All the extended players post rotation. All the casual players with all the old cards except for duals.

If we make the articles strong, and present decklists that are truly well developed and tuned (through such a subforum on this site), I think Wizards would be eager to post a regular article on their site on Legacy. They already do that for Vintage players. An accesible legacy is absolutely essential to the long term health of magic. For cards to retain value, they absolutely need a format they can go into once extended rotates out, that doens't have the huge barrier of entry that Vintage provides. Thus, I think Wizards would actually encourage our efforts.

The essential tenet of legacy, that you never ever have to scrap your deck because it rotated out, has immense appeal to casual players and budget players. We just need to capitalize on that and people will flock to the format. Through these articles, we not only shatter the myth that all legacy decks need dual lands and fetchlands, we also introduce a host of casual players to legacy for the first time (a casual players dream format), illustrate just how much fun legacy matches and games are, how diverse and unpredictable the format is, how fun the games are, and also introduce them to the Source for the first time by linking each article to it's corresponding thread in the source's subforum.

Once these people enter legacy and make our tournaments more meaty, they can slowly ease their way into buying staples and dual lands as well. All we need to do is provide them with a fine starting point and guidance.

APriestOfGix

12-23-2007, 10:49 AM

Include Dragon Stompy, City of Traitors and Jitte are the $$ their.

I like the idea, but not sure if it will be adopted

Clark Kant

12-23-2007, 11:03 AM

I already included Dragon Stompy. What I forgot to include was Angel Stax.

And I'm sure there's plenty of other decks I forgot to include as well.

Or were you saying that Dragon Stompy shouldn't be included because of City of Traitor's and Jitte's cost.

I had no problem getting a playset of City of Traitor for around 10 on ebay a few months ago. Yes, I had to look for a good deal, and use gixen.com to find the great deal but still, even you spend twice that on it, the deck still can be built for well under $120 or so. That's a reasonable budget.

The same goes for Jitte, you should easily be able to get a playset for about $25.

But also, Jitte is immently replacable. There's about a dozen equipment you could run in it's place and still have a reasonably strong deck.

TheAardvark

12-23-2007, 11:37 AM

But also, Jitte is immently replacable. There's about a dozen equipment you could run in it's place and still have a reasonably strong deck.

Except that there are like five good pieces of equipment, and one of those is probably too slow for the format, while another is only playable in Affinity. The two Swords are the only other equipment comparable to Jitte, and they have different roles than Jitte a lot of the time.

Just saying.

Clark Kant

12-23-2007, 12:01 PM

Fine, then spend the $25 for a playset (or $13 to play 2). It's still budget.

Back to topic, so I count 34 decks (including Angel Stax) off the top of my head that qualify as viable decks in legacy and are cheap to build.

I think that's enough decks to warrant a seperate forum where they can developed and new ones added to the list in order to attract more people to legacy and have reasonable turn out at legacy touranments again, don't you?

Bovinious

12-23-2007, 12:07 PM

Im not so sure you should be trying to find alternatives when some decks only have only a few money cards, Id rather encourage buying a few staples such as Jitte, FoW that can be used in many decks even w/o Duals/Fetches.

But if money is really so scarce there are many totally budget options like you said.

dontbiteitholmes

12-23-2007, 12:37 PM

I don't think a "subforum" is such a good idea. I mean it just will fill with scrubby shit quickly and make the source look bad. I think the real answer is to start a new thread. The opening post is a list of budget decks, kinda like so.

Mono-Blue Control ~ $150 (Force of Will, Morphling)
Burn ~ $60 (Chain Lightning)
Suicide Black ~ $70 (Nantuko Shade, Phyrexian Negator)
9-Land Stompy ~ $80 (Tarmogoyf)

And each deck name links to the appropriate Thread where we are discussing the REAL DECK, not some "budget version". Sending people to tourneys with shitty decks is the last way to promote a format. So to repeat no "budget versions" IE, a worse version then the real deck. We don't need budget versions of real decks when plenty of real decks are budget. Then bring up the fact that if you spend $100 on a Type 2 deck every time a new set comes out, then all the cards are worth nothing in 3 months, you could spend $300 on a real Legacy deck that will still be either a good deck in a year or probably worth more then it is now (then sell and buy a new deck).

Clark Kant

12-23-2007, 12:50 PM

Your post is part of the problem.

You listed four decks that were budget decks...
Mono-Blue Control ~ $150 (Force of Will, Morphling)
Burn ~ $60 (Chain Lightning)
Suicide Black ~ $70 (Nantuko Shade, Phyrexian Negator)
9-Land Stompy ~ $80 (Tarmogoyf)

The only ones that come to peoples mind when they think of a budget legacy deck, and they are all extreme monotonous and boring to play. When infact, there's 30 other viable budget decks out there, that are usually a lot more diverse and fun to play.

Yet people don't even think of them, because they don't realize that so many budget decks can exist in legacy. This subforum would address that issue.

The point is not a subforum with a lot of crappy decks. There's already a subforum for that.

The point is a subforum for competitive, strong budget decks and refining them and testing them to the point that an bimonthly article can be written on a different deck each week to get posted on magicthegathering.com

Having such a regular article is absolutely critical in getting new players into the format.

And frankly, just having random people write the article with a random decklist that they recieved no input on from other sourcers is a bad idea. Lists made by one person are rarely good. They need input and development.

That's precisely what the subforum is for.

I would argue that a Sui Black deck that foregos the expensive land destruction cards for a strong discard/disruption suite would be about as good with development from lots of people. So I don't see where your "crappy budgetized decks" fits at all.

Just because a deck is built with financial considerations in mind does NOT make it crappy.

The $120 cap is plenty of money to allow decks running 4 FoWs, 4 Sinkholes, 4 Tarmogoyfs when they are important to the deck.

So yes, budget decks can run FoW too.

Another reason such a forum is critical, to serve as a one stop resource for people new to legacy and to people on a budget.

Not many people have the patience or ability to look through all legacy decks, find the ones that can be built for cheaper, and make them viable on their own.

Having a place to turn to would be a huge help for them.

Lastly, and this can't be understated, it would really help clean up some of the other forums. Theres plenty of time wasted on the regular forums about posts on how to build the deck for cheaper, and plenty of threads posted of decks built with clear financial constraints in mind. This forum would help clean all that stuff out of the regular forums.

SilverGreen

12-23-2007, 01:26 PM

I don't want to be pessimist, but I think it wouldn't work (and I really hope I'm wrong here). It isn't the lack of the most expensive Legacy staples per se that keeps people away from the format, but the idea of playing with sub-optimal decks that it causes. That's the same reason people refuse to play with Shocklands replacing Duals. Don't get me wrong, but I think that any attempt to make budget decks popular wouldn't work. At the core, people don't play Legacy just because they like Legacy - they play the format because they like their cards.

Even worse, I think any attempt to popularize budget decks could have a negative impact on the format. Among other bad things, it would stretch even more that image of "casual players and noobs" players of other formats have about Eternal players. I think the right way to make the format more popular would be convince people to save part of the money they would spend in other things (and formats) and invest it into Legacy. Instead of buying a playset of Garruks or some fast food lunches, buying a playset of FoWs, or one playset each of Survivals and Wastelands. The problem here is that people would probably prefer the "must have" Garruks.

Afro

12-23-2007, 01:29 PM

The main reason I play legacy and I believe many others do too is to play with actual 'GOOD' cards in a diverse format where many deck options are at least plausible. Believe it or not many of the good cards cost the most money (duals, fows, etc.) so what is the point of playing legacy over extended or standard if you are have no means or desire to take the plunge and make an actual investment in the format money wise. It just seems like you are going to be playing shitty decks when you could take the money and invest in T2 or extended and actually make decent decks.

Oh and by the way a lot of decks you posted can't be butchered and turned into budget. There is no such thing as a 'budget' 43 land.dec Many of the expensive cards (Tabernacle, Duals, Fetches, Explorations, Mazes) really have no budget replacements and even losing one of these cards changes the whole working of the deck and pretty much makes it unplayable.

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 02:28 PM

All good ideas, however I really think that cost is not what is holding people back from playing Legacy, it's opportunity to actually play that is the stumbling block.

For $1000 a player could assemble most of the building blocks required to play Legacy moving forward. Duals, Fetches, FoW, a few other pricey OOP cards and they'd be good to go. Then the costs would be similar to what all players face moving forward, trying to pick up playsets of the new cards that will go OOP and become pricey.

The key to getting interest in Legacy rising is to actually have major tournaments on a regular basis. If you had a 64+ person Legacy tournament once a month in NYC you would see interest in that area rise very quickly. Ditto for Boston, Northern Virginia, northern NY state (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse triangulation somewhere), Northern California/Oregon, Southern California, Chicago, etc.

The thing that killed type I was that WoTC took control of the process in a way that really damaged all the small store owners and convention outfits who had previously run tournaments in NYC. Over-regulation of any competition leads to less opportunity for people to play except by the regulators, who may or may not have the competition as their primary interest. WoTC had selling cards as their primary interest and type I damn near died.

Clark Kant

12-23-2007, 02:34 PM

Edit to respond to new reply: A thousand dollars is a lot of money. It's ridiculous for us to expect someone to invest 1000 into a format they probably never played before instead of making it easy for them to make that transition by popularizing the lesser known good competitive budget strategies out there.

Silver Green, honestly, I think it's the negative spin put on every new idea that's hurts the format the most.

I'm not talking about bastardized decks or casual decks. So why do you insist on putting such a negative spin on it just to prevent people from trying anything new.

I'm talking about decks like Angel Stax, Ichorid (running City of Brass), Belcher Combo, Angel Stompy, Spring Tide, Dragon Stompy etc etc that are inches away from being cheap to build and still extremely competitive.

Decks that so few people even realize are extremely competitive decks that can be built on a budget.

Having a subforum for such decks and an article series for them is NOT going to lead to a casual bastardized decks.

It's going to lead to a more diverse format with a lot more players playing solid decks that deserve to see more play like Stax, Pox, Dragon Stompy etc instead of a format where threshold makes up over 50% of the field and barely anyone plays the format.

If it doesn't work, oh well, atleast we gave it an honest effort.

Frankly, I'm sick of what I hear about legacy...

that unless you're willing to play crap monotonous decks like Burn or 9 Land Stompy, you can't play in the format without all the duals and fetchlands.

And I'm sick of the complete lack of any coverage legacy gets on magicthegathering, and it's huge dearth of players.

This is easily the funnest most diverse format in magic and it's the one thats the least known about, the most misconstrued, and with the least number of players.

And we have no one to blame for that but our selves. Wizards gave us a GP and a World Champs.

If we take the initiative that vintage players do to get the lesser known and cheap to build decks covered on magicthegathering, Wizards would be happy to publish it.

We as legacy players are the ones failing to promote the format, to promote the budget friendly competitive decks in the format.

And this reaction here, that any effort to change that is doomed to fail, or that it will lead to an image of this being a casual format with crappy decks is part of the problem.

Peter_Rotten

12-23-2007, 03:35 PM

Here are a few concerns:

1. "Budget" is a relative term. What is budget to me is not budget to others. One member building a budget version of Thresh may be able to casually say, "Just drop the $$$ and get a playset of FoWs." Another member will balk at spending that much for cards.

2. Building budget versions of decks often DO result in diluting and weakening the original form. Thresh without FoWs and Goyfs? No thanks.

3. Magic, no matter whatever popular format, is an expensive hobby. Try to be good at draft without dropping some serious cash. Draft once a day and you'll be spending around $80 a week. That doesn't sound cheap to me.

If the "budget barrier" is preventing ppl from playing, maybe we can attack this issue from a different angle. Could we provide alternatives to buying every card yet still allow people to play the best version of the best or most popular decks? Here are some methods that I've been using to avoid budget issues and massive Wife-Aggro.

1. Share cards with friends you trust. Develop a small group of pooled cards from individual collections. The past few times I went to a Legacy tourney, Norm, JP, and I were all playing with each others' cards. Not one of our decks could have been built with just a single one of our collections.

2. Loan decks to those you trust. At the last Hadley tourney, Shane lent CorruptedAngel a Goy-Sligh deck. CA had no collection to speak of but still wanted to play. I may be wrong, but I think Forceofwill also borrows decks. In fact, two tournies ago, I was playing against a "borrowed" Aluren.

3. Win. This is the "coldest" and least reliable option here, but I used this method to replace my two "Nick C-ed" Taigas.

4. When money allows, buy staples. It may be better in the long run to avoid buying the whole Goblin deck and buy a play-set of duals instead. Maybe the community could even construct some sort of Buy Order List.

Clark, I know you're worried about us all being Negative Nancies about your idea, but I think that there may be other methods to attack the budget issue.

outsideangel

12-23-2007, 03:39 PM

The problem with presenting a bunch of 'budget' decks to new Legacy players is that this isn't attractive.

Magic is a game. In most games, (chess, poker, Limited, etc.) no one player goes into the game with an advantage over the others. However, Legacy is different. If, for whatever reason, you have more money than me, then you have a definite advantage over me before the game has even started.

If I'm limited to a handful of 'budget' decks then I am at a clear disadvantage going into a tournament. Very few players want to play a game that's already stacked against them. Would you play chess if you could only use pawns, knights, a couple bishops, and a king, while your opponent was packing a bunch of rooks and queens? Wouldn't make for a very good game, would it?

kilukru

12-23-2007, 04:43 PM

I , for one, would welcome our new budget overlord!

Im an old school player (started when revised got out) but abandonned the game for diverse reason (my deck's and half my bonder's got stolen) but came back to the game a couple onth ago and fell in love with legacy. The thing is I went back to school last years so I really work on a budget. I am slowy building up my staple card binder, so far i got my playset's of FoW, crucible, confident, sinkhole and a couple more and I intend in aquiring more cards as time go bye.The thing is, I cannot get them all at once, so budget deck arent an option for me, for now, and I feel im not the only one in this situation.

So I say, lets try it, in the worst of case we will be only 4 or 5 poster in the forum but im pretty sure there will be interest for it.

And remember, In soviet Russia, deck's build you!

FakeSpam

12-23-2007, 05:02 PM

Budget decks, and the very concept of building on a budget anger me.

Yes, there are some decks that are less expensive than others. It's true.

It's not something you want to talk about, especially on a message board.

Example: My random aggro deck would be way better if it ran Tarmogoyf instead of Watchwolf. However, watchwolf is a quarter and Tarmogoyf is thirty-friggin-dollars. Why would I bother discussing Watchwolf? What is the point? Why would I waste other people's time?

I wouldn't. Because it's stupid. You have to assume unlimited access to any card in the format.

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 05:22 PM

Budget decks, and the very concept of building on a budget anger me.

Yes, there are some decks that are less expensive than others. It's true.

It's not something you want to talk about, especially on a message board.

I don't understand this comment at all.

Why wouldn't you want to talk about the fact that competitive decks can be built without having access to every card ever printed?

There are definitely players who play Legacy with only the fixings for a few competitive decks and enjoy themselves despite that fact. There's a Goblin player in my vicinity who does fairly well on a continuing basis despite the fact that he really does not own a lot of cards.

Example: My random aggro deck would be way better if it ran Tarmogoyf instead of Watchwolf. However, watchwolf is a quarter and Tarmogoyf is thirty-friggin-dollars. Why would I bother discussing Watchwolf? What is the point? Why would I waste other people's time?

With Watchwolf you wouldnt. With Werebear? Maybe, there are concepts where Werebear is not just a completely inferior option to Tarmogoyf although it's probably not optimal.

You have to assume unlimited access to any card in the format.

How many people actually have access to any card they'd need in the format? Nobody I know. If I absolutely need something then I go buy it but there are entire archetypes that I avoid because I don't want to spend $150 to flesh out the decks in the archetype.

There are ways to avoid needing to have all the cards you could possibly play in a competitive Legacy deck and I'll bet the vast majority of players who play Legacy pursue those ways preferentially to spending until they're broke.

FakeSpam

12-23-2007, 05:29 PM

There's a Goblin player in my vicinity who does fairly well on a continuing basis despite the fact that he really does not own a lot of cards.

Good for him, that's great. Now why should I, or the legacy community, care?

Wouldn't he do better with an optimal list?

TeenieBopper

12-23-2007, 05:41 PM

I don't understand this comment at all.

Why wouldn't you want to talk about the fact that competitive decks can be built without having access to every card ever printed?

Because you can't build competitive decks without having access to expensive cards. Sure, you can build a zoo deck with Watchwolf instead of Tarmagoyf, but Tarmagoyf is going to make the deck better. You could build goblins without with Mogg Flunkies or something instead of Piledriver, but Piledriver is going to make the deck better. You could build some sort of blue based control with Thwart instead of Force of Will, but Force of Will is going to make the deck better. You see where I'm going with this?

With Watchwolf you wouldnt. With Werebear? Maybe, there are concepts where Werebear is not just a completely inferior option to Tarmogoyf although it's probably not optimal.

That's the point. It's not optimal. Discussion of decks on a message board is an entirely theoretical exercise. As such, you strive for optimal. Someone posts G/w/x zoo and asks for help to make the deck the best it can possibly be. The only way that's going to happen is if it's playing Tarmagoyf. If one can't afford Tarmagoyf's, that should be stated in a post by post basis, with the understanding that everyone is going to tell you that you should be running Tarmagoyf.

How many people actually have access to any card they'd need in the format? Nobody I know. If I absolutely need something then I go buy it but there are entire archetypes that I avoid because I don't want to spend $150 to flesh out the decks in the archetype.

Access to any card they need for the format? Probably very few. Shit, even before I sold out, I didn't have access to every card for the format. But for a particular deck? I think it's reasonable to assume that you have access to or can get access to the cards for whatever deck you desire to build. It's only fair to make that assumption because, you know, they want to build the deck.

If you can't afford Tarmagoyfs, simply say so and move on, possibly asking what card would be best suited to replace it. Look, Magic is an expensive hobby. Cost of entry is always going to be a barrier, for any format. It's a shame, and to be perfectly honest, I wish they would've dropped the "collectable" part from this hobby years ago. But they didn't, so I live with it. Sure, you can get away with running budget decks, but don't try to delude yourself into believing that budget decks (with very, very few exceptions) are going to operate on the same level as those that aren't.

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 05:42 PM

Good for him, that's great. Now why should I, or the legacy community, care?

Wouldn't he do better with an optimal list?

He has all the cards he needs to play Goblins. He has the optimal Goblin list.

Why should we not discuss the fact that he can do well on a budget? You said that this is not something that should be discussed on a message board.

Why?

It's an elitist attitude to say that unless a person has access to everything their decks aren't worth discussing.

goobafish

12-23-2007, 05:47 PM

I believe the purpose of these boards is to create optimal lists, and tweak them for a metagame. To provide sub-par lists is in my opinion, a crime. People come to The Source to get lists and see deck discussion. If they cannot afford the cards to build a deck optimally, it is up to them to either play another deck, or substitute pieces of the deck of their choice.

I can't see how budget forum can help the format, it is merely providing incentive for players who are not serious about the format to play in events and get discouraged because they cannot beat the decks with "money" cards.

Simply put, if you do not have the money to invest in lets say Threshold, then look around the forums for a deck that has more cards you own, or less money cards in it, like Dragon Stompy.

FakeSpam

12-23-2007, 05:47 PM

It's an elitist attitude to say that unless a person has access to everything their decks aren't worth discussing.

It sure is.

I'm saying that it isn't worth discussing budget versions of decks because, with very few exceptions, the budget versions are by definition inferior.

TeenieBopper

12-23-2007, 05:48 PM

I'm saying that it isn't worth discussing budget versions of decks because, with very few exceptions, the budget versions are by definition inferior.

Ding ding ding, winnar!

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 06:07 PM

Because you can't build competitive decks without having access to expensive cards. Sure, you can build a zoo deck with Watchwolf instead of Tarmagoyf, but Tarmagoyf is going to make the deck better. You could build goblins without with Mogg Flunkies or something instead of Piledriver, but Piledriver is going to make the deck better. You could build some sort of blue based control with Thwart instead of Force of Will, but Force of Will is going to make the deck better. You see where I'm going with this?

You can build one or two very competitive decks for much, much less than it takes to be able to build the universe of competitive Legacy decks. Goblins is maybe a $250 investment, but probably a lot less than that on e-Bay.

Piledriver and Lackey cost under $100 for a playset of 8. Rishidan Ports are another $15 or so if you're playing two of them. Squee is $10, Siege-Gang Commanders are $20 a play set and Aether Vial is $10 a playset.

You've got a perfectly good deck with all the trimmings for $250 or less and it's going to eat the majority of the $1000 decks out there alive in a tourney.

Access to any card they need for the format? Probably very few. Shit, even before I sold out, I didn't have access to every card for the format. But for a particular deck? I think it's reasonable to assume that you have access to or can get access to the cards for whatever deck you desire to build. It's only fair to make that assumption because, you know, they want to build the deck.

Anybody who is good at trading and has an eye for value in new cards can basically find the cards they need for a good deck once they decide they're done playing the old one and are ready to move on.

Tarmogoyf was a $3 critter when Futuresight came out. He stayed that way for weeks. There was plenty of opportunity for people to snap up a playset or two.

Every set that comes out will offer the opportunity for players who missed out on Tarmogoyf to quickly identify the strongest cards in the set and buy them cheaply, either to play or to trade for Tarmogoyfs as they appreciate.

If you were smart enough to buy two playsets of Tarmogoyf then you have a set to trade for a playset of Force of Will, assuming you missed out on that the first time around.

Look, Magic is an expensive hobby. Cost of entry is always going to be a barrier, for any format.

Only at the level that you want to enter the format. If you just want to buy a couple of Legacy decks (Goblins and Death and Taxes for example) it's very affordable.

It's a shame, and to be perfectly honest, I wish they would've dropped the "collectable" part from this hobby years ago. But they didn't, so I live with it. Sure, you can get away with running budget decks, but don't try to delude yourself into believing that budget decks (with very, very few exceptions) are going to operate on the same level as those that aren't.

The only difference between running good cheap Legacy decks and running whatever deck you want to run is the choices you have going into a tournament.

Goblins came in second in the Flash/Hulk GP, right?

Nihil Credo

12-23-2007, 06:09 PM

I don't know whether budget discussions would help or damage The Source (and the format)'s reputation, but to say that deckbuilding with a money constraint is inherently worthless doesn't make any fucking sense.

Suppose a guy comes in and tells you: Hi guys, I have decided I'm going to play in a tournament tomorrow, but for whatever reasons I don't have access to Tarmogoyf for my (Thresh/Pikula/Zoo/whatever) deck. What is the best list for me to play given this condition?

It's a restriction like any other, no less arbitrary then "Hey, let's discuss a deck built around Cephalid Illusionist/en-Kor creatures". And whether the optimal choice is Quirion Dryad, Werebear, Jotun Grunt or Scab-Clan Mauler is a discussion worth having.

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 06:09 PM

goobafish

12-23-2007, 06:13 PM

Peter_Rotten

12-23-2007, 06:15 PM

If the Budget forum was just devoted to good budget decks then it'd be a service to the community.

There's no reason that good decks that cost under let's say, $250 to put together shouldn't have their own forum for discussion. As long as they are accepted to be strongly competitive at that price.

And here is one of the inherent problems with Budget decks. You keep quoting $250 as a reasonable price for a budget deck. Back when I had money to burn, I had not problem spending cash on a Goblin deck. Now-a-days, $250 is out of my price range. Do I feed the family this week or buy a Goblin deck? Everyone is going to have their own definition of "budget."

I think budget concerns would be better addressed through a method suggested by Nihl. In the appropriate deck thread, a member can simply say, "Hey, I have everything for Thresh but Goyfs, and I can't afford them. What can I play in place of the Goyfs?"

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 06:15 PM

Then there is no reason for a budget forum If its a legitimately good deck, it will be in the legacy proven forum.

The benefit of a Budget forum would be that the lists in there are all valid for somebody playing on a budget.

You could find some other way to delineate the budget lists so that people who were interested mainly in them could find them easily, but a separate forum would make them easily accessible.

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 06:24 PM

And here is one of the inherent problems with Budget decks. You keep quoting $250 as a reasonable price for a budget deck. Back when I had money to burn, I had not problem spending cash on a Goblin deck. Now-a-days, $250 is out of my price range. Do I feed the family this week or buy a Goblin deck? Everyone is going to have their own definition of "budget."

I think budget concerns would be better addressed through a method suggested by Nihl. In the appropriate deck thread, a member can simply say, "Hey, I have everything for Thresh but Goyfs, and I can't afford them. What can I play in place of the Goyfs?"

Yeah, you could also have a budget decks thread that listed decks acknowledged to be relatively cheap to play.

The point, I guess, is that Legacy is a fairly inaccessible thing for people who are starting basically from scratch, with maybe access to three or four years of releases, you know the Standard players who have burned out on that and want to just play with their cards.

Coming to a site like The Source doesn't really help all that much because virtually everything here is setup for aficianados of Legacy who already have access to a significant number of the power cards in the format.

Having an area of the board that was devoted essentially to newcomers to Legacy would inevitably grow the community and contribute to the growth of Legacy as a whole, which I think we can all agree would be a good thing.

Budget decks would be a great place to start. You'd just need to insure that the decks that were posted there were actually competitive in Legacy as a whole. It could be moderated the way that the DTB forum is, with decks moved there if they were competitive and also were relatively cheap to build. Goblins would be the first entry is my guess.

DeathwingZERO

12-23-2007, 06:28 PM

People have their own ways of determining budget, much like P_R said. Another problem with telling people about building on a budget is that metagame shifts can quite easily wreck your entire investment, and now your out $$ and have an absolutely terrible deck for X amount of months.

Goblins are a staple because they are mono-colored, they are tribal dominant, and most of the supporting cast are easy to find uncommons/commons, built around 8 cards that can be found for anywhere between $60-100. That's not the case with most other decks. Affinity follows the same idea. The problem is neither of these decks are going to be fully adaptable to a larger shift, and either win once in a blue moon, or be traded back in at a severe loss (in most cases) for another deck that's probably going to fall to the same problems. Versatility is the key to Legacy, and that almost always falls into duals and universal staples such as Goyf, FoW, and others.

Realistically, we've been down the road before. Our staples are expensive, yes. But someone with any determination whatsoever will be able to pull off putting money into a deck over time, especially if they play other formats and start picking up older cards with their winnings. There's really no reason to support sub-optimal choices just because someone doesn't have the money, you are already admitting that you shouldn't win against a field of higher competitive decks, and that's a losing strategy from the start.

frogboy

12-23-2007, 09:11 PM

The essential tenet of legacy, that you never ever have to scrap your deck because it rotated out, has immense appeal to casual players and budget players. We just need to capitalize on that and people will flock to the format.

The reason most of my friends don't play Legacy is because they don't have any tournaments to go to. The only reason I started playing 1.5 is because that's the format my local store spread. I think your fundamental premise may be flawed. Why would a casual player be interested in spending a few hundred bucks on a tournament deck?

Also, budget Standard decks are for sure going to be cheaper than budget Legacy decks. I would also guess they're more viable because you're not getting blown out by the expensive cards before skill or whatever you're banking on to win can kick in.

And who is going to write these articles?

edit: also, yeah, winning is a good strategy even though tournaments are raked.

FoolofaTook

12-23-2007, 09:43 PM

The reason most of my friends don't play Legacy is because they don't have any tournaments to go to. The only reason I started playing 1.5 is because that's the format my local store spread.

Yep. I've tried to get a couple of friends back into Magic to play Legacy because I know they still have the cards they had in 1999. The reaction I keep getting is along the lines of: "you want me to spend $500 to get the key cards I need to compete today and there are no tournaments larger than 24 people to play in? Yah, yah..."

The thing holding Legacy back right now is the lack of viable competitions in my opinion.

Finn

12-23-2007, 11:17 PM

Something wrong with simply pinning an estimated cost in the thread title?

EDIT: OK, I just tried this and it seems the thread title is locked. My changes appear only if you are already in the thread.

from the Established Decks forum: [Deck] Death and Taxes
from within the thread [$120 Deck] Death and Taxes

Mods, I bet it would be helpful to have that info in the title in some way. Is there a policy against it?

ClearSkies

12-24-2007, 12:33 AM

While Budget can (and probably is) of the problems that keep Legacy from growing, I think there are other factors as well.

1) General lack of interest in Legacy as a whole to begin with.
I think this is the main problem of Legacy. In the local card store I usually visit, to attempt to hope for a Legacy tournament (They schedule them a every other week), so far, there is never enough people to start it.

Yet, there were 40+ people drafting, and 20+ standard the other day (and week week for that matter). Throughout the day, there were like at least a dozen people going in and out with their casual decks, which were all Legacy only legal.

I think this is the problem. Since a player is allowed to use practically any card that player wants in Legacy, it would be like a casual game almost. (Ignoring the decks types and whatever) Is there any reason for them to pay 5$ (or whatever entry fee) to play what they normally play for free?

Not to mention that those who aren't playing the casual decks are playing the Standard decks. Using Legacy-legal cards is a bit unfair advantage versus Standard decks right? This leads to what I think is the 2nd problem:

2) People want to play what the majority plays.

If the majority of the people only play Standard/Draft tournments, why would you go and practice/build decks for a Legacy tournament alone? With so much people playing Standard/Draft tournaments with little idea of a Legacy tournament (at least in my area), they tend to lead to the next problem:

3) Legacy misconceptions
Often, I often hear that people complaining about Legacy is nothing but turn 1-3 kills, and how the format is too fast. (And etc.) Also, at how all the decks are super expensive (duals, stables, etc.), and required those to play.

4) The "I will not go on internet for deck ideas or any mtg strategy articles" attitude.
I find this might be a problem too. New players tend to not know as much cards as old players. When older players constantly win with the same feel decks (especially the expensive, well-known decks in this forum), it really discourages New players from wanting to continue/join.

Afro

12-24-2007, 12:34 AM

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 01:13 AM

Everyone has a different budget that is the problem. For a 6 month period a couple years ago my magic budget was about $4oo a month. Now it is down to like $150 so I am slowly building back my collection. Budget is a case by case basis as P_R stated so you really can't do a site wide budget when everyone spends different amounts on cards.

Everybody has a different budget it's true, however some idea of how expensive a deck is would always be nice when discussing it.

As to the point ClearSkies made about Legacy misconceptions and 1-3 turn kills, it's generally been my experience that anybody bringing a casual deck to a tourney does tend to die in 1-3 turns on average against tournament capable decks.

This is all the more of an argument for promoting cheap effective decks so that people can sit down at a Legacy tourney and not die instantly when their opponent plays a multi-land. Being new to the format they'll die fairly quickly anyway, however they won't have their opponent asking them exactly what they were planning to do with the Urza's lands anyway... And if they are running Goblins they might even win a game or two before the day is over.

edgewalker

12-24-2007, 01:28 AM

Everybody has a different budget it's true, however some idea of how expensive a deck is would always be nice when discussing it.

Or, they could just check on the price list of the cards themselves. Honestly, you sound more and more like a kindergarden teacher/communist with each post.

Budget decks aren't the answer because they're inferior. Sure you can waste $20, and it really is wasting it, to go play at a tournament, get your ass stomped in my an actual viable deck and have your legacy experience ruined. I personally feel budget decks are a terrible idea if you want to be competitive, you can't play with inferior decks. If you want be casual stay at the kitchen table and out of the tournaments.

Anarky87

12-24-2007, 01:43 AM

In my area it's hard to even get the budget players to play Legacy. Their mindset is that they bring a random mess of 60 (sometimes 60+) cards and, when they lose, assume the other person either: cheated, plays unfair, or has tons of money for unfair cards. Then they just stop playing in the tournaments altogether, because they aren't 'fun.'

I have even been banned from playing in Legacy tournaments in one shop unless I play something shitty like the other players. This was after I had won about 2-3 weeks in a row and then had a rather long, drawn out atlercation with the shop owner on how discriminating and objective he was making 'fun' to be.

While I think budget decks are ok in a certain sense (like undeveloped metas), I think this kind of mentality as seen above will tend to be all you get from the casual and budget players.

Versus

12-24-2007, 02:29 AM

Not owning complete sets of duals/fetches does hinder the kinds of decks I want to build, but it certainly doesn't stop me from playing competitively.

Lemme just run an example past you...

My current Standard deck= $500

My current Legacy decks: Sui=$100/D&T=$130/Faerie Stompy=$450 (and that can be reduced by $100 if you're not retarded like me and need your Efreets to be Arabian Nights)

I don't think budgetary constraints are the main issue at all. It's support and it's an age thing. Most players I talk to don't even know what Legacy is, and stores don't carry enough singles to support it anyway. The majority of players you see at the local shop built their decks from drafting and trading. Next time your at a store ask to see someone's binder. Guaranteed you'll find plenty of Dorans and Serra Avengers. Chalices and Rishadan Ports, not so much. The same can be said of the stores inventory as well.

I honestly think the majority of Magic players want to play T2. They like that the format changes with each rotation and building new decks is part of the experience. Shit, some of them I see bring a new deck every week. Some build them right there in the store minutes before the sign up.

All I'm saying is, there are 15 year old kids running play sets of Thoughtseize and Goyfs at local FNM's. The money is there, the support is not.

TheLion

12-24-2007, 06:12 AM

I think we should not discuss how to make an already proven good deck budget, by replacing Tarmogoyf by Watchwolf, since this would just make the deck worse.
We should discuss more or less competetive decks that are cheap by their own. Like say Affinity or 9land Stompy.

Or like suggested: "Create a new good deck" with cheap cards...

But:

All I'm saying is, there are 15 year old kids running play sets of Thoughtseize and Goyfs at local FNM's. The money is there, the support is not.

true :rolleyes:
Some even have their playsets of expensive cards 1 week after prerelease...

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 11:44 AM

Forget it. It seems pretty clear that most of the people here don't give a crap about anyone else's financial situation.

All that I proposed was that we have a forum (and an article series on magicthegathering.com) dedicated to GOOD DECKS that happen to be a budget for people considering getting into the format and are unfamiliar with legacy, and thus don't know what decks are budget and what aren't or DON'T EVEN REALIZE THAT LEGACY HAS ATLEAST 30+ DECKS & STRATEGIES that are GOOD AND COMPETITIVE AND JUST HAPPEN TO BE BE BUDGET.

Where did I say crappy decks, seriously, where did I propose that the forum and article series be for bad casual decks. If anything the forum would decrease the number of bad casual decks in legacy and replace them with competitive budget decks like D&T all while showing people considering legacy that you don't have to be a millionaire to enter the format.

But apparently, most everyone else here likes legacy being an exclusive club, so exclusive that you can't get a decent sized regular local tournament going even in a city with 3 million people. Or atleast isn't bothered by it enough to have to put up with the terrible inconvenience of having to scroll past one additional forum when they visit the site.

I think we should not discuss how to make an already proven good deck budget, by replacing Tarmogoyf by Watchwolf, since this would just make the deck worse.
We should discuss more or less competetive decks that are cheap by their own. Like say Affinity or 9land Stompy.

Or like suggested: "Create a new good deck" with cheap cards...

Which if anyone here actually bothered to read my opening post, was largely what I was proposing.

A forum and article series specifically for GOOD decks that happen to be budget...

Death and Taxes

Sui Black with Discard instead of Land Destruction

Angel Stax

and the 30 other decks listed.

P.S. Thank you for your support Foolofatook.

edgewalker

12-24-2007, 12:03 PM

That's cool

With that said, I agree there are competitive decks that are CHEAPER. When you use the term budget it has a certain conotation of inferiority attached to it. Budget I feel is a reference to good decks with all the expensive(good) cards taken out. Cheaper decks are a different story, and I agree they should be look at by those just entering the format.

However, I don't think we need a new forum for it, that's just silly. Players aren't idiots. They're going to see the decks and see the cards and do their own price checks. What you're advocating is a excuse for people to be lazy and throw out dumb ideas.

If we do anything a thread should be made with a list of "Cheaper" decks in legacy that are viable, sorta like of TMD has the list of viable decks in legacy.

I have to agree, that the main problem isn't money, you're and idiot if you think that because most T2 players have Gofy and what not, and they have the money to buy the staples after each rotation. No, the main problem is support, either there aren't enough people at the tournaments, there are to many casual players, or there are no tournaments at all.

Versus

12-24-2007, 12:04 PM

I agree with you! There are plenty of "budget" decks that are completely competitive without being compromised. I just don't think that is the reason holding back prospective players.

All I'm saying are people are willing to throw down hundreds in order to play a deck that becomes obsolete in a few months to a year (max) and yet they balk that Legacy is too expensive. Fuck em, they wanna play a dumbed down card pool in order to win FNM foils and $10 store credit, so be it. People have no problems paying $60 for Cryptic Commands, yet $80 can get them FoW's. Does that sound like budgetary contraints?

That's how I see the majority of players opinion on Eternal formats. Maybe I'm completely off base...

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 12:13 PM

No actually, they don't.

I've started playing type 2 too (because as already mentioned, no one out of a city of two million plus people + freaking plays legacy), trust me. The vast majority of type 2 players don't have Goyf playsets. Only the uber competitive ones and the ones that play professionally, and the occasional rich 15 year old brats that you guys keep ancedoctally citing as the norm, do.

Most 15 year old players are eagerly seeking out decent commons (which is why I always bring a box full of them whenever I go to a store to give away). Just because every so often a player comes along with a playset of Thoughtseize, Tarmogoyf, and all the Shocklands just for the hell of it, doesn't mean it's the norm.

The thing is, type 2 is full of players that play largely with commons and uncommons and the numerous $2 rares that can be found on ebay. They wouldn't think of ever buying a playset of Tarmogoyfs.

So when they look at legacy players, playing with their playsets of Volcanic Islands and fetchlands, they instantly assume that legacy decks are all way out of their price range. They don't see or know of all the competitive legacy decks out there that can built for the same cost as their current decks. Because practically no one plays them, and even when they do, the type 2 players have every reason to assume that those decks are every bit as expensive as those decks they see with all the duallands and fetchlands.

We can change that. With an article series dedicated to the three dozen or so competitive budget legacy decks out there, with a forum to post create and discuss such decks that new players looking into the format can readily reference, we can get more people to play legacy.

But apparently, most people here don't give a crap about making legacy more accessible by making it's viable budget options more transparent and readily sortable in one place and writing articles about them.

Bovinious

12-24-2007, 12:13 PM

All I'm saying are people are willing to throw down hundreds in order to play a deck that becomes obsolete in a few months to a year (max) and yet they balk that Legacy is too expensive. Fuck em, they wanna play a dumbed down card pool in order to win FNM foils and $10 store credit, so be it. People have no problems paying $60 for Cryptic Commands, yet $80 can get them FoW's. Does that sound like budgetary contraints?

I cant remember the last time I agreed with someone this much on this forum. Bravo, I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 12:23 PM

God, you guys are every bit as oblivious as they are of us as to what actual type 2 decks and players are like, the real ones, that play at card shops at local FNMs, not the crazy competitive ones that you see on messageboards and top 8ing at tournaments. :laugh:

I'm starting to think that the real problem is the attitude of the people here. Maybe if we drop this whole, god all type 2 players are idiots who buy 40 Shocklands when they're released and all us legacy players are so much better than them attitude, legacy would have a shot at being a halfway liked format.

Bovinious

12-24-2007, 12:28 PM

I think by "actual type 2 decks and players" you mean scrubs, because even semi-serious players dont play with mostly commons and uncommons. I think it is a double standard how people will pay way too much for Garruk, Goyf, Command, and Seize, and then grope about how Legacy is too expensive. This is especially dumb since those cards wont be good in a year or so and Legacy staples like FoW and duals will always be good. I mean if people just said they didnt want to play Legacy because its not a very well supported format Id understand, but I dont like it when people invent price barriers that arnt really there.

edgewalker

12-24-2007, 12:32 PM

I think the players you defined are called casual. That is what we as a community don't want, call us elitist, but casual players only harm the format. We want the format to be competitive. If the kids you play with have less than $60 decks, legacy isn't for them. Every deck plays at least one or two cards that will put them over their casual player budget.

It sounds to me you're not advocating for a cheaper decks, but a means to make casual players competitive, which isn't a money issue, it's a mindset issue.

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 12:45 PM

You're right, you are elitist. Playing with decks that happen to cost under $60doesn't make a person a scrub. Whether you're a scrub or not is defined by how well you play the game, not by how much you have to spend on it.

It's exceedingly easy to build good competitive monocolored decks for under a$100 in type 2 (and legacy as well though so few people seem to realize that). I happen to have three extremely competitive monocolored type 2 decks, and all three of them combined couldn't have cost me more than $200 to build. Most of the best cards in standard are commons and uncommons. There's just a handful or expensive cards in standard, almost none of them neccesary for any decks, and atleast twenty times as many very strong commons and uncommons. That's what attracts people to type 2. Yes, you CAN in fact build good decks for under a $100 in type 2 no matter how much you insist that's not the case. And I argue that the same is true for legacy, legacy is full of competitive decks that cost less than a $100 to build, we just need to do a better job of getting that message out there. That's the whole point of this thread.

Having people play with decks that cost less than $60 doesn't "harm the format" as you insist. Few scrubs know enough about magic to have even heard of legacy. Who I'm talking about attracting are the good type 2 players, who build good decks, but using mostly commons and uncommons and $3-5 rares to do so. Having them in the format is a benefit.

Most of those players are extremely good magic players. Just because they happen to still be in college and be able to afford to spend several hundred dollars on a card game doesn't make them bad players. And it doesn't make them any less fun to play against either.

-------------------------Edit: Preemptive reply to Edgewalker--------------------------

I didn't even read the rest of you're post. Name one competitive Legacy deck that is under 60. I don't think there is a single one.

I think that's part of the problem here, not reading posts. If you read my initial post, you would have seen that I listed several. But since you asked for one, lets go with Mono Red Burn (you know that deck that manages to top 8 at pretty much every major european tournament).

And if you actually read my other post on this very same page, you wouldn't still be throwing out straw men arguments about how I am advocating casual noncompetitive decks. Because I've clearly said again and again and again that what I'm talking about are good and competitive decks that happen to be budget. But either you didn't read any of my posts, or you are conciously ignoring this fact so you can continue to throw up straw men arguments about how I'm advocating for noncompetitive decks that are inherently inferior.

This demonstrates the problem perfectly. If even legacy players are still oblivious to the various budget strategies out there that have already proven to be competitive, how can we expect nonlegacy players to find out that there are in fact viable decks that can be built for around how much standard decks cost to build.

And if you read my post. I already defined the price range that I'm quantifying as budget, approximately 100-120. But honestly, I'll leave it to the posters to just use their judgment. I picked that figure because as long as you're sticking with a monocolored strategy, 100-120 is a very easy figure to stay under without even trying. You usually have enough left over in that budget number that you can squeeze in a set of FoW into the monocolored deck and still stay under $120.

$120 also works out to be good number because that's about double the price of most budget standard decks, and about the price of most normal standard decks. The point is to make legacy about as financially accessable as type 2 is.

Decks that require playing 4 Dual Lands and 8 Fetchlands aren't going to be budget yes. But you are severely mistaken if you don't think that mono color strategies are viable.

Dragon Stompy, Death and Taxes, various Stax variants, and a huge number of other decks I listed have top 8ed at various tournaments repeatedly.

So for all those people posting that there are no budget decks in legacy, no good decks that can be built for around $100, what do you call the those decks, figments of our collective imagination?

edgewalker

12-24-2007, 01:07 PM

You're right, you are elitist. Playing with decks that happen to cost under $60doesn't make a person a scrub. Whether you're a scrub or not is defined by how well you play the game, not by how much you have to spend on it.

I didn't even read the rest of you're post. Name one competitive Legacy deck that is under 60. I don't think there is a single one. Also, I don't care how well you play, you can't win without a viable deck, and looking at your list, there isn't a single deck that is under $60. Doesn't define you're scrubbiness, the viability of your deck does.

EDIT: Please name 1 competitive deck that you've top8'd in a non-casual meta that was under $100. I'm looking for an inexpensive deck to play.

An aside, don't ever assume you know anything about my social status, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. I'm a fresh attending a state school. Obviously money is falling off the trees for me either. Hell, between friends, school and track, I don't really have time for magic outside the occasional draft or MWS game. I was young once though, and I managed at one point to play fairly viable decks (R/g beats was viable back in the day) or I could have borrowed a viable deck from a friend.

If you can't afford a deck by yourself, my suggestion is go in on a deck or two with your friends.

EDIT2: I have a hard time discussing this with you because you jump from Legacy to T2 and 15 yr to young adults in college without any logical transition.

Bovinious

12-24-2007, 01:16 PM

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 01:21 PM

Or, they could just check on the price list of the cards themselves. Honestly, you sound more and more like a kindergarden teacher/communist with each post.

Budget decks aren't the answer because they're inferior. Sure you can waste $20, and it really is wasting it, to go play at a tournament, get your ass stomped in my an actual viable deck and have your legacy experience ruined. I personally feel budget decks are a terrible idea if you want to be competitive, you can't play with inferior decks. If you want be casual stay at the kitchen table and out of the tournaments.

Here's my take on what you just said here: "I haven't read most of the posts in this thread but I'm going to pop in with an opinion anyway."

If you'd read my posts you'd have realized that I'm only interested in promoting viable budget decks as an entry for people into Legacy.

There's nothing about Goblins or Death and Taxes that's even remotely inferior to the vast majority of competitive decks out there. Do they get rolled by some things? Sure, but so does every deck in the format at the moment.

They do have the benefit of being a cheap entry into Legacy and they are part of a subgroup of maybe a dozen other relatively cheap decks that should be the target of any competitive Magic player on a budget who wants to compete in Legacy from the perspective of starting with few, if any, of the Legacy staples.

edgewalker

12-24-2007, 01:22 PM

Basically what edgewalker said, you cant really play the game well with a deck under 60$, so therefore by your definition even Kai Budde would be a scrub with a 50$ deck, that sounds more elitist to me...

I don't mean so much as a scrub, but even you have to admit, if kai where to play a less than viable deck in a field of top tier decks would he still come out on top? Magic isn't based solely on skill, you need luck and more importantly the right cards. I'm not saying you need all the Uber broken cards, because I agree, you don't. You can do very well with a deck that costs under $250, even $200, but under $100? Not in legacy my friend, it's the harsh reality you're going to have to face if you want to be competitive.

@Fool: I agree with you, I wasn't dropping a steaming pile on your posts just Clark's. I agree there are a lot of viable decks that are cheap and don't require 2-3 sets of duels. Hell, I play/played Ichorid. It's cheap and does it's job most of the time. What I disagree with is taking viable decks that cost a lot and taking out all the expensive stables and making a cheaper and inferior deck a.k.a. BUDGET.

To summarize what I'm trying to say
"Cheaper" decks = GOOD
Budget Decks = BAD

Bovinious

12-24-2007, 01:27 PM

I don't mean so much as a scrub, but even you have to admit, if kai was playing a less than viable deck in a field of top tier decks he'd still come out on top. Magic isn't based solely on skill, you need luck and more importantly the right cards. I'm not saying you need all the Uber broken cards, because I agree, you don't you can do very well with a deck that costs under $250, even $200, but under $100? Not in legacy my friend, it's the harsh reality you're going to have to face if you want to be competitive.

Yeah I agree, Kai Budde's playskill could probably carry him through a tournament with a sub-par yet still viable choice, but even Kai couldnt do well with say 9 Land Stompy in a Tier 1 meta.

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 01:36 PM

I think the players you defined are called casual. That is what we as a community don't want, call us elitist, but casual players only harm the format.

This is so untrue. Casual players, who might want to play in a tournament once every few months, would make a huge impact on the viability of Legacy as a whole. Particularly in terms of fleshing out 64+ person tournaments.

You may want to play endless 20-24 person tournaments against the same faces over and over again but I don't. I'm not advocating getting the 200 card decks full of Pearled Unicorns and Mesa Pegasi into play, however I'd be just fine if half the tourney field in a given day was playing casual decks if that's what it took to get a viable 6 round tourney together with a cut to 16 or 8 at the end.

I loved it when my friend Paul's Millstone deck, which was one of the best decks in the area and regularly top 8'd in 128+ tourneys, got knocked out in the first round by a 9 year old with a 400+ card deck. They drew at time in game one and he lost the coinflip to advance. Casual jank can point out weaknesses in any tight concept and it should be a given that you'll go through two rounds of it before the field tightens. At least in my book.

It sounds to me you're not advocating for a cheaper decks, but a means to make casual players competitive, which isn't a money issue, it's a mindset issue.

You cannot make casual players competitive in a skills-oriented competition, however you'd be surprised how often a casual player turns into a real competitor when they have been exposed to the competitive environment.

Creating an elitist environment in which casual players will not even bother sitting down at the table is what kills competition because the game turns into the same tired faces playing the same tired decks until they lose interest and drop out. You have to create growth in the player base if you want to have a sustainable long-term competition.

fregle

12-24-2007, 01:39 PM

What a strange discussion... I was very surprised to read that people don't play legacy because of the costs involved...

I play legacy because for me it's the cheapest format... I haven't followed magic between urza's Destiny and Scourge (but i started playing in 1994 so I have a lot of old cards), and even now I only follow it from time to time (professional life, family, most of you will understand this). So every time I return to magic I have to get 2-4 cards from every set that was released to have all the cards I need for Legacy, most cards are aimed at Standard anyway, and have better alternatives in older sets. Ok, the cards I do need are invariably very expensive, but if I buy a booster box I can trade/sell all the Standard/Extended cards and get the Legacy cards with no added cost whatsoever...

In fact, I firmly believe that Standard is by far the most expensive format, simply because you have to buy lot's of booster boxes, put lots and lots of time in it to quickly get the cards you need and to keep up with the metagame, AND every card you need is at it's most expensive, you can't wait a few years to get a card at a cheaper price (ok, I couldn't wait a few years to get Tarmogoiyf either, but for Extirpate for example i can wait until it cycles out of Standard and becomes a lot cheaper).

I have to admit, I got my FoW's for 1€ a piece when Alliances was still in print, I got a lot of duals at 10€-15€ and some even out of booster packs, but I didn't have any fetch when I started playing again, and I didn't have all 40 duals either, but that doesn't really matter, those are cards that don't lose value anymore, so if you really need to you can sell them again without losing anything, and you can take it slow, you proxy them until your deck is finished, and then decide to buy the ones you really need for the tournament, it really isn't that expensive (unless you are still in school, but for those players all formats are way too expensive).

Where does this image that Legacy would be expensive come from? Only extended might be slightle less expensive, but I believe they are comparable, and Classic and Standard are without question the most expensive format's you can play...

zulander

12-24-2007, 01:41 PM

To be honest I don't think this is going to work.

1. Type 2 is much more expensive to play in than 1.5 in the long run.

2. If you generally aren't rich enough to start a hobby DON'T START IT.

3. If you can't build competitive decks a. Draft more, b. don't whine when you lose because you don't have the cards necessary.

I'm reaaly reaally not trying to be a dick but this is something that has been tried in type 1 (where you can literally use proxies at tournaments) and it still doesn't affect the number of people in the format. Most often times people will use the excuse of "I don't have money" so that they don't have to learn a whole new format, but that's from my experience of trying to bring type 2 players over.

Bovinious

12-24-2007, 01:47 PM

edgewalker

12-24-2007, 01:50 PM

Fool, you're meta is something that I would not want to play in. If it came down to playing against endless amounts of Jank in 60+ person tournament or a developed meta of 20 people. I'd take the 20 people. Besides, every meta eventually shifts to the 20 people. As more and more people become competitive they pick up more and more viable decks. No one wants to waste a tournament fee, so it causes everyone else to either evolve and improve their decks or simply stop playing. It's basic Darwinism seen in magic.

As far as turning Casual players into competitive ones, I stand by what I said. It's not the issue of money, it's the need/want to move from the kitchen table and G/r beasts to the tournament scene and a more viable option. As far as improving their play skill that will happen over time. Throw someone in a competitive meta and they will adept. It's basic social psychology, and works with any competition. The easiest example is running a race, 90% of the people in the world run faster when they are racing against someone then when they are running alone. If you're racing against someone who is faster than you, you will attempt to run faster. The same is true in magic, when you play against more experienced and skilled opponents you improve, not just in your skill, but in all areas of play, you begin to realize that G/r beats isn't going to get you into the top8, but something along the lines of BBS, Ichorid, Angel Stax or some other cheap but viable deck will. Even here, theres room for improvement, you begin to move higher up in the tiers and start playing threshold, TES, or Breakfast (with all the staples)

DeathwingZERO

12-24-2007, 02:00 PM

Realistically most people don't play Legacy or Vintage because it requires a lot of time and dedication, something Standard, Extended, and Block tend not to.

The reason why: Coverage. There's very little support in Eternal, yet tech, playing guides, and pros giving a shitload of good advice is EVERYWHERE in the other formats. You want to learn how to play a near perfect game with UB Teachings? You go to a couple of videos and find some threads and articles about it. Want to see what's been leaked as recent tech? Go hit up decklists from recent events.

Legacy and Vintage? You'll be going to forums. On occasions you'll see good info at SCG articles and the like. Other than that....nothing. It requires to actually do some research, find viable changes in your metagame, and playtesting on your own. Most casual players won't bother with the work. They can take their $5, their budget deck, and go play FNM every week. Once in a while they'll win. Other than that, they probably get a chance at the door prize, and think nothing of the remaining formats they haven't broke into.

And as far as Elitists go, you better believe I'm an elitist. Wanna know why? Because scrubs that netdeck like they do in Standard and Block don't belong in Eternal. We have incredible diversity, bounds of unknown tech, and players that are so good at the game they'd be in PT Points if they traveled to formats they didn't like just to win. We don't WANT scrubs around here. Bad players and bad decks dilute the format, cause random and mostly unwanted shifts in local metagames, and typically make the serious players (which is honestly what any of us Eternal players really are) annoyed as hell to come to a tournament every week.

If anything, most of the recent large tournaments in America prove my point nearly perfectly. How many pros did you hear actually playtesting seriously? How many did you hear would be willing to come back to these events more often? How many actually gave a damn about the cardpool, the decks, or building new ideas when they had the chance? Ya, not that many. When even the pros that are in it to win don't care about what they play and damn near netdeck everything, that gives you an idea of what the average Legacy players get to go through when we start listing off reasons why nobody wants in on the format.

edgewalker

12-24-2007, 02:06 PM

And as far as Elitists go, you better believe I'm an elitist. Wanna know why? Because scrubs that netdeck like they do in Standard and Block don't belong in Eternal. We have incredible diversity, bounds of unknown tech, and players that are so good at the game they'd be in PT Points if they traveled to formats they didn't like just to win. We don't WANT scrubs around here. Bad players and bad decks dilute the format, cause random and mostly unwanted shifts in local metagames, and typically make the serious players (which is honestly what any of us Eternal players really are) annoyed as hell to come to a tournament every week.

QTF or something along those lines.

fregle

12-24-2007, 02:27 PM

Here's a thought: why don't you create a subforum to rent cards? With a collateral ofcourse... You only need the cards to play at tournaments right, in any other given situation there is no need to own the cards you want to play with... A lot more people would be able to play tournaments if they could pay a collateral when they enter the tournament, use the cards for that tournament, and then return the cards to their owner at the end of the tournament to get the collateral back (minus some money for the rent, you have to give the owners an incentive to step into this system too).

There will still be people who can't pay the collateral, but for example people with a job can pay a collateral, as long as they get it back again to spend it on food and the rent and such. I believe this will bring more people to Legacy than a budget deck subforum...

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 02:29 PM

If anything, most of the recent large tournaments in America prove my point nearly perfectly. How many pros did you hear actually playtesting seriously? How many did you hear would be willing to come back to these events more often? How many actually gave a damn about the cardpool, the decks, or building new ideas when they had the chance? Ya, not that many. When even the pros that are in it to win don't care about what they play and damn near netdeck everything, that gives you an idea of what the average Legacy players get to go through when we start listing off reasons why nobody wants in on the format.

Pros netdeck when they have to play Legacy because they have no time to prep from scratch for a format that sees so little competitive play.

It's just a matter of appropriate utilization of resources.

Anarky87

12-24-2007, 02:37 PM

I don't think there's any incentive to transition from Legacy from Standard for non-Eternal players. For Standard and Extended, I could travel to my local card shop and, in a couple of hours, most likely have traded for whatever is in flavor at the time. Standard/Extended have more accessiblility, because anyone can go on a Friday/Saturday and really trade to get what they need to play. And then be able to ACTUALLY PLAY right away. Whereas with Eternal, it's about hunting down the cards, buying them online, or hoping someone has something in their binder. It's all a waiting game and a majority of Casual/Standard players just don't want to do that.

Why would someone want to spend time hunting down their Legacy decks, when they can throw together a Standard deck in half the time and already be playing tournaments? Every once in awhile I play Standard, because they've recently started reprinting cards I already have. I've gone with MBA quite a few times and made top 4. But that's because my area is full of scrubby players and I know that ANY deck with a sem-sound strategy will do well. I wouldn't take that same deck somewhere that has a developed meta and skilled players.

I wouldn't say that throwing casual players into competitive environments makes them better. From what I've seen, they just whine and complain when they get beat or stop listening to you when you tell them how they could improve their deck. I've heard quite a few distracted, "Yeah..." after a match when I'm trying to help those people. It is a mindset. All they see is that they lost to a bunch of money cards/netdeck.

Cheaper decks I don't mind, but do we specifically need a forum for them? Not sure. But I wouldn't go into a powered meta with a budget deck and expect to get very far. In one tournament, my rounds went like this (I was playing 4c Landstill):

Round 1: B/G Poison Creatures 2-0
Round 2: Mono Red Acceleration into Puzzlebox and Red Akroma 2-0
Round 3: Mono Green Stompy from Standard 2-0
Round 4: ID with my friend
Top 4: U/G Madness (gets bad draws and then accuses me of cheating and storms off) 2-1
Top 2: Rifter (my friend) 2-0.

It was after this that I was told not attend anymore tournaments because the casual players didn't like getting beat.

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 02:37 PM

Fool, you're meta is something that I would not want to play in. If it came down to playing against endless amounts of Jank in 60+ person tournament or a developed meta of 20 people. I'd take the 20 people. Besides, every meta eventually shifts to the 20 people. As more and more people become competitive they pick up more and more viable decks. No one wants to waste a tournament fee, so it causes everyone else to either evolve and improve their decks or simply stop playing. It's basic Darwinism seen in magic.

This was not true for a period of 3 years from late 1994 to late 1997. The meta expanded seemingly endlessly as the tournament sizes got larger and larger, starting at 32+ in 1994 and moving to 512+ in 1997. This was in a single elimination format in which you paid your $20 and half of you only got to play one round and then wound up shunted to side tourneys with a $5 entry fee.

There was nearly as much casual jank being played at the end as there was at the beginning.

What shrank the meta in a huge way was WoTC stepping in via the DCI and stomping all over the playing field. As soon as they told people they could not play with the majority of their cards the existing meta folded and the "pros" (mostly 15 to 18 year old kids) took over and started playing the Standard (initially type II) format. The vast majority of adult players moved on at that point, because they saw no reason to jump on a treadmill in which most of their cards would be obsoleted every few years (less than that early on actually.)

Your Darwinism had nothing to do with Magic and everything to do with WoTC and the DCI stepping in and over-regulating the competition. That's what turned Magic into what it is today, and what it is is just a small part of what it could have been if the competition was regulated to let people play instead of to make profits for WoTC.

fregle

12-24-2007, 02:43 PM

Realistically most people don't play Legacy or Vintage because it requires a lot of time and dedication, something Standard, Extended, and Block tend not to.

i'm sorry to have to say this but that simply is not true... It takes a lot more time and dedication to keep up with Standard/Block then to keep up with Legacy, the ONLY thing that's harder about Legacy/Classic is the initial learning curve, once you are over that you can keep up with Legacy/CLassic spending only a few hours a month.

The huge amount of time needed to keep up with competitive Standard/Block is one of the most important reasons I do not play it (only topped by the money I would have to spend to keep up long term)...

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 02:46 PM

Why would someone want to spend time hunting down their Legacy decks, when they can throw together a Standard deck in half the time and already be playing tournaments?

Well, the real advantage that Legacy offers over other formats is that there is a much better opportunity to put a unique concept or idea into play, because of the much larger cardpool. This advantage has nothing to do with a Budget deck discussion however.

Another advantage for people who are so inclined is to take a relatively cheap deck and beat the snot out of much more expensive decks full of high-priced cards.

Ultimately the real challenge in any competition is to take on all comers and prove your idea or playstyle to be superior. That's what drives any format and it is no less or more a driver in Legacy than in Standard, Extended or Vintage.

Anarky87

12-24-2007, 03:14 PM

Well, the real advantage that Legacy offers over other formats is that there is a much better opportunity to put a unique concept or idea into play, because of the much larger cardpool. This advantage has nothing to do with a Budget deck discussion however.

Another advantage for people who are so inclined is to take a relatively cheap deck and beat the snot out of much more expensive decks full of high-priced cards.

Ultimately the real challenge in any competition is to take on all comers and prove your idea or playstyle to be superior. That's what drives any format and it is no less or more a driver in Legacy than in Standard, Extended or Vintage.

Yeah, but see, half of that just isn't the case.

In order to beat the snot of competitive decks, your deck has to be at least half-way decent as well. It has to show that you yourself are developing as a player to see what problems you need to overcome in your meta. If that's happening to someone, they are on their way to becoming a better player. Just showing up with casual God-Awfulness (Poison Creatures, Precons, 20land30bigcreatures10worhtlessotherspells.dec) and saying, "I'm gonna beat the snot out of all these high powered decks!" isn't a sound strategy. The cheap deck you're bringing has to be somewhat good on SOME level.

Proving your ideas, which are at least halfway decent to begin with, in a field is comepletely different then proving that your terrible deck with awful choices is good. Of course none of this really answers my question and sort of proves it. If the driving force to prove skills and ideas is available in ANY format, why bother with a format that would take more time and waiting to obtain a deck for? When another format already exists that's even more accessible and allows to you to get into tournaments and play more games?

Peter_Rotten

12-24-2007, 03:51 PM

I find statements like this...

Forget it. It seems pretty clear that most of the people here don't give a crap about anyone else's financial situation.

...to be rather insulting and much too broad. Your ideas are being discussed - some are challenged, some are accepted, some are dismissed. But making statements like the one quoted cannot help you defend your case at all and are bordering on inflamatory.

With that being said, I have a few points:

1. These discussion boards exist to discuss building and testing the best possible versions of decks. We could create a contest/forum/whatever to build the best deck under $100, but, in the end, will that deck be better without budget constraints? Probably.

Look at Goblins. Without Ports, Wastelands, and Duals, the deck can be built for under $100. But is it not better with a color splash and the mana denial added? I see in this thread (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=84401) that Red Death is cheap to build without Sinkholes. But isn't the deck better with them. 9 Land Stompy sans Beserk? An OK deck, but isn't better with Beserk (and probably Tarmogoyf, also)?

2. Ultimately, I disagree with the basic premise that people don't play Legacy because of budget constraints (or that more ppl would play if we created or pointed out more viable cheap decks). I believe that more ppl would play Legacy if it was better supported (by Wizards, by local stores, by Baby Jesus, or by whomever).

3. Goyf really put a cramp in the cheap viable aggro deck. Now even Sligh and 9LandStompy run Goyf and cost over $150 to play.

4. I really think that ppl generally choose to play a deck (at a tournament) for one of two reasons: it is a good deck, or it is a fun deck. Good decks run good cards. Often, good cards cost a good deal of money. :frown:

SilverGreen

12-24-2007, 03:57 PM

LEGACY HAS ATLEAST 30+ DECKS & STRATEGIES that are GOOD AND COMPETITIVE AND JUST HAPPEN TO BE BUDGETHere's the core of the question. There isn't good and competitive budget decks. But there is cheaper, good and competitive decks, and there's a lot of diference here.

Please, just don't ask people to play with bad versions of existing decks. Instead, show them there's amazing deck options among the 30, 40+ Legacy's viable decks and strategies. If you have no cards to build a full and good Threshold or Faerie Stompy, then play with a full and good White Stax or a Dragon Stompy.

Nihil Credo

12-24-2007, 04:28 PM

1. These discussion boards exist to discuss building and testing the best possible versions of decks. We could create a contest/forum/whatever to build the best deck under $100, but, in the end, will that deck be better without budget constraints? Probably.
Do you think "discussing, building and testing the best possible versions of decks under $ X" is a valuable purpose for a forum? It's certainly a problem that exists in real life.

frogboy

12-24-2007, 04:37 PM

1. PR's point about tournament support is to my mind very valid, and I havn't seen any counter arguments.

2. Budget discussions in general need moderation. An entire forum might be a lot of work. I'm not necessarily opposed to it if my workload remains more or less the same.

Anarky87

12-24-2007, 04:46 PM

Do you think "discussing, building and testing the best possible versions of decks under $ X" is a valuable purpose for a forum? It's certainly a problem that exists in real life.

But is such a forum needed? That's what I want to know. Do we need a forum for decks that are already in other forums just so we can say, "Hey, in case you lack the ability to browse a site, here's a forum where we put them all together." To me, that seems a waste. Why can't people just browse a given forum, find the deck that interests them, and then look at said deck and see what they can and can't play?

Do we need a specific forum to say Affinity is cheap to build, Dragon Stompy is cheap to build, D&T is cheap to build, etc.? It seems a simple thread/site browsing would yield the same results. I'm all for encouraging more players, but I don't believe holding their hand, because they can't even navigate a website, is a way to do it.

Nihil Credo

12-24-2007, 04:59 PM

Do we need a specific forum to say Affinity is cheap to build, Dragon Stompy is cheap to build, D&T is cheap to build, etc.? It seems a simple thread/site browsing would yield the same results.
I wasn't thinking of this - I was thinking more of discussions like "Hey, what's the best replacement for Tarmogoyf in my Zoo list?". Should such questions:

- be discussed in the deck thread?
- be discussed in a separate (budget) thread?
- not be discussed on the Source?

C.P.

12-24-2007, 05:08 PM

@Clark Kent

I played the format since the days of pre-separation, with pretty heavy budget constraints. Damn, I found wastelands(5-7 each at the time) hard to get. And this was age of Bazzarr, Workshop, and Drain. When the separation happened, I found the constraints got better. You did not need drain or shop or something anymore.

So what now? Now people are complain about other staples. Now there are tabernacles, berserks, Duals and Forces to complain about. If these somehow went out of budget concerns (like, banning or reprinting), then others will be a most valuable card and be 40$ dollar card that you don't wanna put your cash in.

I admit that budget is a huge issue in the format. Sure, you play with like, 8 duals and 8 fetches all day. Of course there is going to be constraints. But it is what will cost you to play the game. Same as Standard or Limited, but people will be more reluctant to spend money because of lack of reward in the format.

To make it short, here is a bottom line:

1. As long as duals and fetches are in the format, a half decent manabase will not be a budget. I do not know what is your definition of budget, but in my poor high school days, it meant under 5 to me. What does this mean? Monocolor. Or play STE or something.

2. As long as it plays some obscure Portal or Legends card, you need to touch E-bay or something, unless you have a big collector near you. You know what this means to true budget player? OUT OF REACH. Dammit. There goes Jungle Lions, Chain Lightnings, Fire Imps, and other fun stuff.

3. Any blue deck that has more than 16 blue card will probably looking for Force of Will. so Don't touch blue if you are budget. Oh, you wanna play Foil? Have fun.

4. Even Monocolor decks will make you commit for the non-budget cards. Face it. there is not a single deck in legacy that does not have a rare 4-ofs.

What does this mean? A competitive true budget deck is not going to happen. Don't lie to yourself, Clark, if you think getting explorations and Manabond is budget. Get off whatever crack you're on. A set of Jitte? Set of Hyppys and Negators? Don't joke around me. Don't pretend that you can help them by saying Legecy is budget format or something. It is not. You are giving them illusion. No more, no less. there is going to be budget in the format, but not with competitiveness. Things like Affinity, Stompy, Sui Black and whatever that you can make it under 100, will not be beating that tier 1 deck with full of expensive cards. At least not in the long run. Let me say it again, you are smoking crack if you really think there is such thing as true budget 'competitive' Legacy.

So, am I a elitist? I might be. I try get people into the for amt as much as possible, I lend cards out, and open a tourney with staples on the line to get more circulated in the community, but I think legacy is not a budget and I believe it.

Anarky87

12-24-2007, 05:42 PM

I wasn't thinking of this - I was thinking more of discussions like "Hey, what's the best replacement for Tarmogoyf in my Zoo list?". Should such questions:

- be discussed in the deck thread?
- be discussed in a separate (budget) thread?
- not be discussed on the Source?

I think just discussing them in the thread would do just fine. After all, the thread is for discussing and developing the deck, so I don't see someone popping in asking for a quick replacement as a hindrance. As long as they're not all, "Ok, I don't have any money, so I've completely bastardized the decklist." If you have to destroy the deck to cope with budget issues, then I'd pick a different deck.

I've also had tournaments where I've put some staples (Duals, Fetches, etc) as the prizes to get more people into the format. I stopped this when after one tournament, some of the casual players who won them went off and traded them for Voidslime, Rakdos the Defiler, and some other garbage (no joke).

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 05:54 PM

I didn't even read the rest of you're post. Name one competitive Legacy deck that is under 60. I don't think there is a single one.

I think that's part of the problem here, not reading posts. If you read my initial post, you would have seen that I listed several. But since you asked for one, lets go with Mono Red Burn (you know that deck that manages to top 8 at pretty much every major european tournament).

And if you actually read my other post on this very same page, you wouldn't still be throwing out straw men arguments about how I am advocating casual noncompetitive decks. Because I've clearly said again and again and again that what I'm talking about are good and competitive decks that happen to be budget. But either you didn't read any of my posts, or you are conciously ignoring this fact so you can continue to throw up straw men arguments about how I'm advocating for noncompetitive decks that are inherently inferior.

This demonstrates the problem perfectly. If even legacy players are still oblivious to the various budget strategies out there that have already proven to be competitive, how can we expect nonlegacy players to find out that there are in fact viable decks that can be built for around how much standard decks cost to build.

And if you read my post. I already defined the price range that I'm quantifying as budget, approximately 100-120. But honestly, I'll leave it to the posters to just use their judgment. I picked that figure because as long as you're sticking with a monocolored strategy, 100-120 is a very easy figure to stay under without even trying. You usually have enough left over in that budget number that you can squeeze in a set of FoW into the monocolored deck and still stay under $120.

$120 also works out to be good number because that's about double the price of most budget standard decks, and about the price of most normal standard decks. The point is to make legacy about as financially accessable as type 2 is.

Decks that require playing 4 Dual Lands and 8 Fetchlands aren't going to be budget yes. But you are severely mistaken if you don't think that mono color strategies are viable.

Dragon Stompy, Death and Taxes, various Stax variants, and a huge number of other decks I listed have top 8ed at various tournaments repeatedly.

So for all those people posting that there are no budget decks in legacy, no good decks that can be built for around $100 and be competitive, what do you call the those decks, figments of our collective imagination?

Anarky87

12-24-2007, 06:23 PM

So for all those people posting that there are no budget decks in legacy, no good decks that can be built for around $100 and be competitive, what do you call the those decks, figments of our collective imagination?

I'd call a few of them a far cry from around $100. From what I've found, DS pushes pretty close to $200 not including SB. And I don't know when Stax became a budget deck; when we first put together Angel Stax when it came out, that deck was pretty expensive, ie. 4 Moxes, 4 Wastes, 4 Angels, 4 Cities, 3 Crucible, etc. Maybe it has gone down some, but when I think of budget decks, Stax doesn't really come to mind.

I agree that others such as Sui, D&T, Burn, BBS are some good budget choices.

Peter_Rotten

12-24-2007, 07:35 PM

I agree that others such as Sui, D&T, Burn, BBS are some good budget choices.

But, once again, we run into the problem that "budget" is a relative term. Dropping $16 for a playset of Negators may not be possible for some players.

Also, although those decks may be good "budget" choices, are they overall good deck choices? Personally, I wouldn't play any of those decks in a competitive tourney unless someone paid my entry fee and I didn't have another deck to play.

Clark, I just don't have the same experience as you: I don't hear/see players saying that they would play Legacy if it was more affordable. The complaints I have heard have been about good tournament and prize support.

Slag

12-24-2007, 07:42 PM

Clark, I just don't have the same experience as you: I don't hear/see players saying that they would play Legacy if it was more affordable. The complaints I have heard have been about good tournament and prize support.

I've found this to be the case as well. There are a number of people in the Raleigh/Durham/RTP area with well-developed card pools and viable decks, but the one local tournement in the area floundered and died because it wasn't worth the trip to it or worth playing over type 2. Besides that, those of us who played scrubby decks had a bonny old time playing scrubby decks purely for the fun of legacy.

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 08:22 PM

And you don't think that if more people could build legacy decks, it would make it far easier to hold legacy tournaments.

It's not a vaccume, as legacy becomes more accessible, more people would be willing to support it.

And for the love of god, please stop the straw men argument about casual crappy decks. It's idiotic, if you read any of my posts you would know that casual crappy decks has absolutely nothing to do with what this thread is about, it's about good competitive decks that also happen to be cheap to build.

Peter Rotten, not everyone is the same as you. Just because you wouldn't personally be willing to ever bring Death and Taxes or Suicide Black in a tourney, doesn't mean that no one would. And yes, those decks have top 8ed many many times in large tournaments, in some cases when they were the only lists representing that archeatype for the whole tournament. So there is no credibility to the arguement that these decks are not competitive.

Peter_Rotten

12-24-2007, 08:46 PM

Peter Rotten, not everything revolves around you. Just because you wouldn't personally be caught dead playing Death and Taxes or Suicide Black in a tourney, doesn't mean that no one would. And yes, these decks have top 8ed many many times in large tournaments.

First, everything in my world DOES revolve around me.

Next, I really wish that you coud have a discussion here without tossing out insults.

And yes, some people would play Sui and D&T at tournies. I would personally recommend that they do NOT do so. Legacy is a diverse format in which that you can sometimes ride lucky pairings into the T8. However, to reach the top 8 consistently, I would recommend playing a deck better than Sui or D&T.

I'll rephrase what I am trying to say: The current best decks in Legacy are expensive. Very few of the better decks in Legacy can be built for under $120. I'd have to price-check Dragon Stompy but I bet that is one of the few better decks that can come close to the $120 mark you set.

Next, your interpretation of "many, many times in large tournaments" should be supported by some evidence. It seems rather vague to me and impossible to qualify.

Lastly, Clark, your angry broad, sweeping assumptions makes it difficult to continue with this discussion. Just because ppl disagree with you, does not make their arguments strawmen and/or idiotic. You have criticized ppl for dismissing your ideas, yet you have done the same to theirs. You have totally ignored any point that has presented an alternative to budget deck building. And I might add, that I think there are some decent alternatives to playing Death and Taxes.

Pinder

12-24-2007, 08:49 PM

It was after this that I was told not attend anymore tournaments because the casual players didn't like getting beat.

This actually reminds me of a time when my friends and I took every one of the top 4 slots in a tourney we went to. After that no more than 25% of your deck was allowed to be counterspells or burn. :laugh:

More on topic, yeah, the best decks in Legacy run the best cards in Legacy, and are therefore the most expensive decks in Legacy. You can build something more budget, or a suboptimal version of a standard Legacy list, but you would be deluding yourself if you thought you would start on anything resembling an even footing with the top tier.

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 08:50 PM

Sorry if I came off as a bit harsh.

But it IS an idiotic straw men argue to say that this deck is about crappy casual decks when its perfectly clear that the deck has nothing at all do with casual crappy decks.

So if Sui Variants, Burn Variants, Death & Taxes and so many other decks are crappy decks, what are they doing top 8ing all over the european metagames.

What are they doing in the Legacy Metagame Forum and the Decks to Beat Forums?

Cait_Sith

12-24-2007, 08:52 PM

Peter_Rotten

12-24-2007, 08:56 PM

I find this topic interesting, so let's be civil.

Watcher487

12-24-2007, 08:57 PM

Ok then let me bounce this one off of you Clark. Let's say for example someone was to find a broken deck, that was currently 'budget', how would it stay possible to stay 'budget'. Look at what happened when Flash was given it's re-errata. Flash jumped over 50x price, Protean Hulk jumped over 10x price just in under 14 hours. Who is to say this won't happen to D&T, if something amazing got printed in Morningtide? Karakas was only printed in Legends and it's already $5 for non-english and over $10 for english over on SCG.com ( http://sales.starcitygames.com/search.php?substring=Karakas ).

Who is to say that won't just jump up even 5x it's current value because of that broken card?

And as a side note Clark: People are finding your claims difficult to understand, and yes I have read all of your posts here in this thread, but you make points in one case with different points. While I would believe it might be nice to have a more casual friendly forum here, it is not possible to really do that while keeping the main goals of this forum in light. While yes, it would be nice to have a deck that is decent when it comes to 'budget' concerns, I think that if the things that you are personally looking for are VIABLE in this format, it should already have it's own THREAD ALREADY. Think about it here, D&T has it's own thread, same with Sui, Burn and really anything else that is cheap to piece together, that has done well either before or even now has it's own thread.

Peter_Rotten

12-24-2007, 09:02 PM

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 09:14 PM

This actually reminds me of a time when my friends and I took every one of the top 4 slots in a tourney we went to. After that no more than 25% of your deck was allowed to be counterspells or burn. :laugh:

That's not Legacy though. Whatever tournament type they were running was no longer Legacy after they made house rules to restrict cards.

More on topic, yeah, the best decks in Legacy run the best cards in Legacy, and are therefore the most expensive decks in Legacy. You can build something more budget, or a suboptimal version of a standard Legacy list, but you would be deluding yourself if you thought you would start on anything resembling an even footing with the top tier.

This is clearly true, however Goblins will make many of those top tier decks miserable as often as not. I would argue that a person taking Goblins to a tourney, who knows how to play Goblins, has just as much chance to win that tourney as any other deck going that day. Odds are they'll get combo'd out at some point, however odds are equally good that Threshold will run into one of it's DoA pairings also.

FoolofaTook

12-24-2007, 09:16 PM

Clark Kant

12-24-2007, 09:59 PM

I noticed the Budget deck thread in MTSalvation.

Would you be interested in organizing something like that here? You could make a thread in Format Discussion and the thread could link to the more affordable Legacy decks. If the Mods agree, we could sticky, too.

I suppose that would serve the same purpose. Yeah, I think such a thread would be very helpful to a lot of people actually. It would take me a few days to put together but I think it could work very well. I would be more tahn happy to put it together but I think it might be best if the mods maintain it.

Great idea. Thank you.

I was really interested in starting up a regular article series on the more affordable decks in legacy as well. I'm not a great writer and was hoping some solid writers could take up the cause so the articles have a chance of getting published on magicthegathering.com but if no one else was willing to do it, I could try my best. But I suppose that would come later if the stickied thread is a success.

frogboy

12-24-2007, 10:41 PM

What about the part where you assert that people aren't playing Legacy because they can't afford it and multiple other people counter that it is instead due to the lack of tournament support?

You should probably email Kelly Digges about mtg.com writing, but I would have a pretty decent resume with articles and hit counts and such first.

Clark Kant

12-25-2007, 01:21 AM

frogboy

12-25-2007, 01:26 AM

Your cause and effect are wrong. In the Seattle area, Vintage thrives. It therefore implies that cost is not a factor and that Legacy should do equally well. It does not. This effect can also be seen in New England and the northern Midwest.

Slag

12-25-2007, 09:23 AM

I'd be more inclined to believe this statement if I hadn't spent week after week watching people pass over legacy to chase after FNM rares as a tear rolls down my cheek and violins play in the background.
People need an incentive to play legacy, whether it be prizes or the allure of using old cards, but they need a arena to play in first. Organizers saying "put your decks together, then we'll talk," is not going to be an effective way to encourage people to play legacy.

andrew77

12-25-2007, 09:42 AM

Legacy has a lot of problems and the cost of the format is one of the smallest.

As many of us know legacy is a format that will never have cards diminish in value as standard will. Legacy decks are also about the same price as a competitive extended deck. Some type 2 decks are even up there in price. The only really expensive legacy deck would be imperial aluren. Other than that most decks are under $500.

The biggest problem legacy has is probably the fact that store owners don't like the format. It isn't good for business. Type 2 will usually attract more players and will help them sell more packs and crappy type 2 cards out of binders. Sure they will sell legacy cards if they held tournies but it is much harder for them to restock FOW's and duals than restocking say aunties hovel. Legacy is also a terrible format for new players to get into and all stores want to attract new players to the game.

Another problem legacy has is the fact that you have to actually know how to play magic to play most of the competitve decks correctly. There are no dragonstorm decks, no enduring ideal or other decks that require no brainpower to play. Legacy is much more balanced than type one and making a playmistake will hurt much more than in any other format.

FoolofaTook

12-25-2007, 11:18 AM

One thing that would get WoTC moving on promoting Legacy would be if a grassroots movement to hold unsanctioned tournaments emerged.

I really don't care about rankings at all. What I want is the opportunity to build decks and compete with them in a thriving meta.

Magic did quite well as a tournament sport prior to WoTC and the DCI stepping in. Maybe it's time to think about Legacy as a post-DCI development that recaptures the original spirit of the competitions.

Happy Gilmore

12-25-2007, 01:36 PM

What exactly is the purpose of a budget deck?

Would you build one simply because you can? Or is it because you cannot afford, or choose not to buy the better cards? Does it make any sense whatsoever to bring a budget deck to a major tournament that you have to fork out at least $125 for food, tournament entry, and hotels (if neccessary) just to play in it? If your making a conscious decision not to play the best possible deck in a specific metagame you have no right to win. Anyone can get good pairings, and it does happen. I've seen angel stompy play 5 mono red decks out of 6 possible and make in into the T8, but was it the best choice? In that particular situation red decks make up 16% of the field, 13% was goblins. His chances of hitting 5 red decks was miniscule. You should never ever play a deck because it is budget. Unfortuantely every budget deck I've seen has worse overall matchups than any deck that includes the best possible cards.

This is true in every format not only legacy. The concept of budget is useless to tournament players. You either play the best or you don't. In some cases the right deck may be cheaper than other options, but that is never a reason to choose one. Many theorists have written on this issue. One I remember described decks in a very different manner. Adrian Sulivan, I believe it was said that each deck has the an inherent ability to take a player to a certain place in the final standings based on power level and prior performance. Threshold for instance would represent a range something like 1-40%, Landstill something like 2-30%, and so on for any given unknown metagame. A budget deck may have a range of 15%-60% for instance. Metagame shifts and skill level can shift these ranges either way. What I'm trying to say is that if you start with a deck that has a high range you are imediately giving yourself a better chance to place in a higher standing. Any deck with a low range is going to require more compensation.

So why waste your time and money on a strategy that can't deliver?

264505

12-25-2007, 01:48 PM

Happy Gilmore

12-25-2007, 02:04 PM

When I first started playing legacy, i didn't really have the cash to build even goblins at that point, nor did i have the trade stuff to get there within about a month even. I built affinity with a peasant deck and a 20 dollar set of ravagers i bought on ebay. Granted, i didn't win, but it got me into events i wouldn't normally play in and gave me an opportunity to trade with people that had duals and FoWs and stuff like that. Most players don't start from scratch, but arent about to go out and spens 60 on a set of duals and 40-80 on a set or 2 of fetches. Its tough for new players to get into because of that and having good affinity lists and burn lists and stuff make it easy for someone new to the format to get used to it.

Exactly, but you didn't dish out a lot of cash to go to major tournaments either did you? I am only guessing but you took your time most likely, winning what you could from smaller local tournaments. Everyone has to do this. I remember when I took mono green stompy (which I payed a total of $5) for to my local shop and played against UWR landstill with Manadrain. I got completely destroyed. Two weeks later I got T8 and picked up some cards I needed to make another deck I was building. Then I slowly built up from there. If I had money to spend on major tournaments I would have first built a good deck. Thats what I'm trying to say. If you have money for major tournament play, and your still playing a budget deck there is something wrong.

Slag

12-25-2007, 02:45 PM

FoolofaTook

12-25-2007, 04:56 PM

It seems, then, rather than trying to make budget decks viable, or to find the best, cheapest decks, we should be identifying "training wheels" legacy decks, which are cheap to build, have useful cards for a legacy collection, and teach many of the interactions in legacy. These decks can work in a transitional capacity until people can decide if they want to invest more thoroughly in the format.

That's definitely a thought.

I also think it would be nice just to identify the decks that can be built relatively cheaply and still be competitive at some reasonable level in Legacy.

Clark Kant

12-25-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by 264505
When I first started playing legacy, i didn't really have the cash to build even goblins at that point, nor did i have the trade stuff to get there within about a month even. I built affinity with a peasant deck and a 20 dollar set of ravagers i bought on ebay. Granted, i didn't win, but it got me into events i wouldn't normally play in and gave me an opportunity to trade with people that had duals and FoWs and stuff like that. Most players don't start from scratch, but arent about to go out and spens 60 on a set of duals and 40-80 on a set or 2 of fetches. Its tough for new players to get into because of that and having good affinity lists and burn lists and stuff make it easy for someone new to the format to get used to it.

Exactly, but you didn't dish out a lot of cash to go to major tournaments either did you? I am only guessing but you took your time most likely, winning what you could from smaller local tournaments. Everyone has to do this. I remember when I took mono green stompy (which I payed a total of $5) for to my local shop and played against UWR landstill with Manadrain. I got completely destroyed. Two weeks later I got T8 and picked up some cards I needed to make another deck I was building. Then I slowly built up from there. If I had money to spend on major tournaments I would have first built a good deck. Thats what I'm trying to say. If you have money for major tournament play, and your still playing a budget deck there is something wrong.

You seem to be of the opinion that if you're not playing at a major tournament, you have no reason to build a good legacy deck.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Lots of people play legacy in local tournaments with a $5 entry fee, or just in their local play group. Or atleast, they could if we made it clear to the magic community at large that you don't need a bunch of duals and fetchlands and a thousand dollar worth of cards to be able to play a decent legacy deck.

In fact, I would venture to guess that only a small percentage of legacy players have traveled a great amount of distance and rented out a hotel room for the sole purpose of playing at a legacy tournament. Does that mean that only that small percentage should desire strong decks that don't auto lose to the one threshold player at the local store that they do play legacy in. That's the wrong kind of attitude to have.

If we made it clear (both through a subforum and a regular article series on magicthegathering.com) that there are over 30 decks (see the opening post) that are extremely competitive and also cost about the same amount to build as a typical standard deck, then we would make legacy have more mass appeal and could increase the number of people that would be willing to try it, and by extension make regular legacy tournaments more likely as there would be a larger number of people able to participate in them.

I don't know why you guys continue to refer to Sui Black, Death and Taxes, Burn etc. etc. as training wheel decks. There's a reason those decks are in the legacy decks to beat forum and the legacy metagame forums right alongside threshold. There's a reason those decks have have many top 8s at major tournaments. There are good decks. The only incentive I can think of to belittle decks that have performed well as training wheel decks is because it helps subconciously justify how much we all spent building decks that cost six to ten times as much.

C.P.

12-25-2007, 06:00 PM

If we made it clear (both through a subforum and a regular article series on magicthegathering.com) that there are over 30 decks (see the opening post) that are extremely competitive and also cost about the same amount to build as a typical standard deck,

No offence, but this gets me whenever you say it. There were people who did not agree with you, but you seem to ignore it. Let's break it down. I'd like you to answer me on this point, since you seem to be good ate not answering what you don't want to.

1. Getting a four of rare that used to be good in a local shop or playgroup is not that easy. That is, at least if you are kind of person who has to opt for cheaper decks just to play Legacy. You are talking as if getting Karakas, Negator, LED, Rainbow Lands, Chalice or Chain Lightning is easy. It is not, and this brings me to the next point.

2. Not everyone has access to eBay or Online card shop. I know that you can build most of the decks that you suggested in fairly cheap price range if you are good with your shopping. However, not everyone has access to this kind of stuff, and not doing so severely limits your options. You know, ravager is still $12 rare in some card stores and affinity is not a budget option anymore (or not as cheap as you make it to be) if you crash near $50 on ravagers alone.

3. What am I trying to get at here? I'm saying you are not looking at the real problem here. If most budget players can afford to shop on eBay and other places on the internet and amount of money that they are spending is limited due to financial situations, then you are right. But that is not true. At least not in my area (Which had a small, but alive budget player base until a local shop closed down). Many budget players who has a will to play legacy lacks ability to shop in internet.

4. Here is another problem. This already has been addressed, but lets get on it again. You said if Legacy decks are as cheap as T2 ones then they will be playing Legacy. How? Ok, lets look at the situation like this.

you are a Magic player who can either play Legacy or T2. You can spend maybe $200 max on a deck, but you will have to be careful.

One choice is to play Standard. Your deck might rotate out in a year or so, but you can play FNM in your local store every week. Also, there are enough people who plays the format, so you can always find other people to play against.

Another is Legacy. The decks are bit more tough to build, since cards are old and harder to find then Standard cards. It also has fewer players playing it. They seem to enjoy what they play, but don't even get to play for FNM foils, let alone PTQ or Regionals.

Aside from personal love for the format, what justifies playing Legacy in this case? Nothing.

I don't know why you guys continue to refer to Sui Black, Death and Taxes, Burn etc. etc. as training wheel decks.

Why? Because they are simple. DnT might not be the case here, but Sui black or Burn basically has a problem of being boring after a while. Unless you are addict to the particular deck type. Do you seriously believe that your ordinary player will enjoy playing Legacy if he or she does is shooting 3 point burns on the face all day for months? When the novelty wears away, Burn or Sui Black(more less so then burn, though) becomes boring.

edgewalker

12-25-2007, 06:39 PM

Clark Kant, I have to ask you what do you consider budget, because throughout this discussion you've been very inconsistant and vague. You refer to "cheap" as several different price levels so things get confusing. I would also like to point out that playing the optimal version of any of your "30 decks" would cost over $100.

However, I think we're all on the same page here. That budget is bad, but cheap isn't since some viable decks are cheaper than other. (Stax vs. Threshold) I still have to disagree about a subforum or a series of articles. First, the series of articles was tried for a big, I remember machinus did a thing, IIRC G/w confinement was one of the budget decks that was looked at. Second, people aren't stupid. They're going to look at what's viable and they're going to try and buy the decks. They'll see price levels and realize the happy medium between affordability and viability.

I have to agree with PR on this one, money isn't the real issue with legacy it's tournaments and price support. If organizers start holding Legacy events people will show up, whether it be with G/r big creatures, millstone.dec, or other jank, people will show up for it if the prizes are worth it. If they show up and the tournaments become regular we have my Darwin version of the metagame. People will want to win so their decks and play will improve causing the competition to either also improve or drop out.

Slag

12-25-2007, 07:34 PM

I don't know why you guys continue to refer to Sui Black, Death and Taxes, Burn etc. etc. as training wheel decks. There's a reason those decks are in the legacy decks to beat forum and the legacy metagame forums right alongside threshold. There's a reason those decks have have many top 8s at major tournaments. There are good decks. The only incentive I can think of to belittle decks that have performed well as training wheel decks is because it helps subconciously justify how much we all spent building decks that cost six to ten times as much.

You certainly have an interesting way of interpreting posts. I would be the last person to belittle burn, as I have played it a fair amount. Burn is, however, just the sort of deck that would be a good "training wheel deck," regardless of whatever stigma that has for you. It contains several cards that are good for a budding legacy player to have, like bolt and chain lightning, and the deck is not so expensive that if the player doesn't like the format they have spent too much money. Burn teaches a lot of concepts important to legacy like using the stack and how to manage cards properly. It is also easy to play, at least mediocrely. In the same fashion, it has some potential to get better as the player becomes more comfortable with it. However, it is a very narrow deck, and may lead players in other directions once they get tired of it. I would say it's better to introduce burn to a new legacy player because of the above reasons, rather than lumping it with a dozen other decks because they are in the same price range.

That aside, there are three things that a new player needs to play in the format: an incentive, a deck, and an arena. I would venture to say that the incentive needs to come first, then the arena, then the deck. Incentive is needed before anything else, because of the time and effort the format requires. For some, incentive is using old cards or dodging rotation blues. For a lot of magic players, that incentive just isn't there, because it's dangling on a stick pointed towards type 2. The arena comes second, because if there's no tournement or playgroup, there's no point in acquiring a deck. Once the other two are in place can a new player be concerned with acquiring a deck.
To really encourage new legacy players, legacy needs to be where people can see it, and see how much fun it can be, and have an opportunity to try it for themselves. When people want (and have the opportunity) to play, they can take the time to analyze their resources and the idea pool.

Now, I'm sure that there are people sitting in the shadows of their local legacy tournements sobbing over their lack of a viable deck, and that is a concern, but I would have to say the big problem is at all the other stores across the country where players have no urge to play legacy or worse, no place to play it.

Happy Gilmore

12-25-2007, 09:31 PM

That aside, there are three things that a new player needs to play in the format: an incentive, a deck, and an arena. I would venture to say that the incentive needs to come first, then the arena, then the deck. Incentive is needed before anything else, because of the time and effort the format requires. For some, incentive is using old cards or dodging rotation blues. For a lot of magic players, that incentive just isn't there, because it's dangling on a stick pointed towards type 2. The arena comes second, because if there's no tournement or playgroup, there's no point in acquiring a deck. Once the other two are in place can a new player be concerned with acquiring a deck.
To really encourage new legacy players, legacy needs to be where people can see it, and see how much fun it can be, and have an opportunity to try it for themselves. When people want (and have the opportunity) to play, they can take the time to analyze their resources and the idea pool.

Now, I'm sure that there are people sitting in the shadows of their local legacy tournements sobbing over their lack of a viable deck, and that is a concern, but I would have to say the big problem is at all the other stores across the country where players have no urge to play legacy or worse, no place to play it.

QFMFT

Oh, and I also agree completely with the concept of cheap vs. Budget. Well said.

Wazzup

12-25-2007, 10:18 PM

Heey guys,

After a break of several years I started up magic again exploring the forums for some cheap deck that fit my playstyle and join me in the comeback. I saw this post and the reactions. I couldn't resist to give my 2 cents.

First of all, Clack Kant... I see your point. I agree that a different sub forum could be a nice way to improve the quality of budget versions running around. I even believe that it might support/help newcomers in the format to step in and bring a creative (and therefore developping) spark to the format when we make clear definitions about what we mean and want.

I think there are different kinds of players. If I take myself as an example, I like to puzzle. I like to play with cards that ohers consider rogue or bad. I like to be creative and bring up new idea's. I like to challenge myself to make a competitive deck for less then 100 bucks. I think your forum idea is ment for those kind of people and starters in the format.

If others don't like it; don't care about it; think that it is crazy or something else it's problebly their way of deck construction or format evaluation. It won't be an addition for them and that's just fine. We can't make everyone happy in this life.

I hear a lot of reactions on the forum why we should NOT do it. I like to bring some agruments why I think it is an addition:

1) It's helps newcomers in the format to enter the format on a bugdet
2) It's helpful for people who don't have that easily access to old cards. In Europe for example some cards are rare. No matter how ebay is in the air, creating a platform for decks who are easier accessable will improve more gameplay
3) Budget/Cheap decks will always be around. And you will meet them. If you want to beat them you have to know what they run and how their decks work. If we want more quality budget decks on tournaments, we should give budget a platform.
4) Being on a budget makes you creative. Being creative is what drives the evolution in the format. Netdecking or finetuning doesn't.
5) Building on a budget is a challenge. It's just another limitation on your card pool just like the format itself. Therefore it's almost a forma in a format.
6) Budget does not nessissarily means downgrading other decks. You can build something new! But even downgrading is worth discussion about what card to cut and the effects of your changes.

A piece of advise would be to define your new "format" very specific. What is budget? Where do you compare the price? Who is the target reading group and what do you want to accomplish in this forum?

Keep on enjoying the puzzle of magic!

Clark Kant

12-26-2007, 01:47 AM

I hear a lot of reactions on the forum why we should NOT do it. I like to bring some agruments why I think it is an addition:

1) It's helps newcomers in the format to enter the format on a bugdet
2) It's helpful for people who don't have that easily access to old cards. In Europe for example some cards are rare. No matter how ebay is in the air, creating a platform for decks who are easier accessable will improve more gameplay
3) Budget/Cheap decks will always be around. And you will meet them. If you want to beat them you have to know what they run and how their decks work. If we want more quality budget decks on tournaments, we should give budget a platform.
4) Being on a budget makes you creative. Being creative is what drives the evolution in the format. Netdecking or finetuning doesn't.
5) Building on a budget is a challenge. It's just another limitation on your card pool just like the format itself. Therefore it's almost a forma in a format.
6) Budget does not nessissarily means downgrading other decks. You can build something new! But even downgrading is worth discussion about what card to cut and the effects of your changes.

A piece of advise would be to define your new "format" very specific. What is budget? Where do you compare the price? Who is the target reading group and what do you want to accomplish in this forum?

Keep on enjoying the puzzle of magic!

QFMFT

Excellent, truly excellent post.

I'm going to try to answer your questions.

The target audience is pretty much very close to what you described. And the goal is to get that audience to build a competitive legacy deck in their price range, and to thus start playing legacy. If enough such players can be recruited, we can also expect to see more attendence at tournaments and thus an increased number of tournaments held as a result.

As for defining budget. I've posted this already on atleast two different occasions, but edgewalker and others seem to have missed it. I personally consider around $120 or less to be the ideal that the decks in the budget forum should aim for.

As I've said already, this price works well because...

A.) This means that decks can include a playset of absolutely essential staples like Force of Wills and such when needed. BBS is one of several very competitive decks that can be built for around $120 while including a full playset of Force of Wills. Depending on the other cards it uses, it might not be able to run the playset of Chrome Moxes that the currently being discussed builds run. But IMO, Chrome Moxes really aren't very important to the deck, the card disadvantage is a big concern inspite of the slight accleration they provide. Many of the versions of BBS that top 8ed at major tournaments didn't use Chrome Moxes. So the card is not a staple to the deck in the way that FoW is. The goal is to build good decks with all their essential staple cards, but leave off the overpriced cards that aren't staples in the deck and don't really help out the deck that much anyway. Another example of this is Sinkhole and Wasteland in Sui Black. Yes disruption is a critical element of Sui Black. But there's no set rule or reason as to why that must be mana disruption. I think a Sui Black deck can be built that is just as competitive but focusing on discard (Duress, Hymn, Hippie) and creature destruction (Smother, Ghastly Demise) and utility cards (Reanimate, Jitte) rather than the pricy land destruction spells that put the deck out of many peoples budgets. This forum would encourage such builds of decks.

B.) $120 is about what most standard decks cost to build. Putting legacy decks price on par with standard decks is a good thing. Most people don't think an year in advance so that the arguement that you guys keep making "your standard deck will rotate out in an year so in the long run, over multiple years, you will spend the same on standard to build multiple decks as you can now on legacy to build just one deck" argument isn't convincing. It never was. People will have more fun building and playing three different $120 standard decks and playing them over three years, than they will spending $360 three years in advance just to build one legacy deck. Being able to instead argue, well you already have a standard deck. For the price of building one more, you could built a legacy deck instead and use that deck forever argument is on the otherhand pretty convincing. Thats what this forum, article series, and series of decks that we develop will allow us to do.

I really don't think we need to get nitpicky about setting a cut off price or calculating as exact cost of the deck.

I prefer to just let the posters use their best judgment. If a certain deck goes a little over the $120 mark, that's okay. As long as it doesn't delve into $200+ terroritory, the deck can stay in the budget forum.

But if anyone actually wants to calculate the exact prices of each individual card in a deck, I find that the price guide at... http://magictraders.org/ to be by far the most accurate one I've ever encountered. In addition, it provides an essentially perfect prediction of how much you can expect to pay for a certain card on ebay.

Clark Kant

12-26-2007, 02:15 AM

You think Legacy costs a lot? In the short term, it does. Consider this, however: Every two years, Standard is completely different. A deck viable two years ago is most likely entirely illegal, save parts of the mana base.

In Legacy, a deck made two years ago is still perfectly legal, as long as it did not contain Flash or Scheherazade (however they spell it). A one time, 1000$ investment could conceivably last five times a Standard deck, or longer still.

The problem is the recouping any part of that 1000$ is immensely difficult due to the relative rarity of Legacy events and the fact that, for them to have good prize support, they demand an astronomical number of participants (by Legacy standards).

Here is where that argument breaks down.

It costs $100-120 to build most competitive standard decks. You say that a legacy deck will cost $1000 to build. I'll be more conservative and say that it'll cost $600 to build without a subforum as what I'm proposing to guide people to competitive decks that cost less to build.

So a person can either spend $600 up front, all to build just one legacy deck with the plan to play that same deck for many many years.

Or they could instead spend $100-120 to build a strong fun standard deck, play the heck out of it for an year or two, then spend another $100-120 to build a completely different fun deck, play the heck out of it for an year or two, and do that four more times.

Yes, if players think 10 years in advance, they may see that legacy is in the long run cheaper. But most people don't think 10 years in advance. And even if they look four-five years in advance, it would be cheaper for them to play standard, than to start up legacy.

And don't forget that the $600 for a legacy deck has to be spent up front, right now, where as the $600 for multiple standard decks over multiple rotations can be spend over multiple years, that's much easier to do.

And lastly, where as opting to spend that money on legacy means that you are stuck playing that same deck over and over again for ten years. By using it on standard, you get to play with a completely different deck every two years, for the same amount of money. It's a lot more fun to be able to play multiple decks.

But what I'm proposing, a subforum and an article series that shows people multiple competitive decks that can be built for around ~120, the same price as a standard deck, changes the above equation completely.

Now, the player can spend $120 on a standard deck, scrounge together on the side another $120 for a legacy deck to play forever, while still being able to keep up with standard. And when a legacy tournament occurs, you bet they will partake in it now that they have a legacy deck. And as tournaments draw larger crowds, store owners begin to hold them more and more frequently. That's the goal.

We're not trying to make standard players give up standard and switch over to legacy. We're trying to make it viable for standard players to build competitive legacy decks on the side, and partake in legacy tournament, while having enough money left over that they don't have to give up standard, just in order to build a legacy deck.

Wazzup

12-26-2007, 09:11 AM

Excellent!

Why not just start in the development forum. [BUDGET] can indicate the "format". Rules and restrictions can be made clear in the first post of the topic.

SilverGreen

12-26-2007, 09:46 AM

It costs $100-120 to build most competitive standard decks. You say that a legacy deck will cost $1000 to build. I'll be more conservative and say that it'll cost $600 to build without a subforum as what I'm proposing to guide people to competitive decks that cost less to build.And here is where that argument breaks down.

I play both formats, and here a full T2 deck costs more or less the same than a full Legacy deck. For example, I have just finished my BG, and I spent much more in Reais (Brazilian currency) in it than I spent in my Faerie Stompy, even counting the Drakes playset.

Finn

12-26-2007, 10:37 AM

1) It's helps newcomers in the format to enter the format on a bugdet
2) It's helpful for people who don't have that easily access to old cards. In Europe for example some cards are rare. No matter how ebay is in the air, creating a platform for decks who are easier accessable will improve more gameplay
3) Budget/Cheap decks will always be around. And you will meet them. If you want to beat them you have to know what they run and how their decks work. If we want more quality budget decks on tournaments, we should give budget a platform.
4) Being on a budget makes you creative. Being creative is what drives the evolution in the format. Netdecking or finetuning doesn't.
5) Building on a budget is a challenge. It's just another limitation on your card pool just like the format itself. Therefore it's almost a forma in a format.
6) Budget does not nessissarily means downgrading other decks. You can build something new! But even downgrading is worth discussion about what card to cut and the effects of your changes.I want this to be true in a very Utopian way. But a lot of this simply is not. Having a budget is a being hobbled in a way your opponents will not be. It is not "just another limitation on the cardpool". And please pardon the elitist way this is going to sound, but budget decks that have purposely and consciously cut cards for non-performance reasons (I mean cost here) are not going to stack up. I do not need to learn how to face them. I see them all the time in round one. Then I pound them into a pulp and move on the same way any decent pilot with a quality deck will.

There is no need for a forum. I can see the discussion now.

"That's a good card, but too expensive."
"You can get them on ebay for $15 each."
"But that still takes us over the dollar cap."
"OK. How about try this instead. It loses a lot of punch, but atleast they're only 50 cents."

How is that scenario in need of a forum? Those decks can never hope to compete. And you know it will be a common one in there. I want very much for low-cost alternatives to be discussed and even highlighted, but by creating a forum where the cost is a factor in selecting cards, you are approaching the topic from the wrong end. A deck's pricetag must be dependent on its components, not the other way around.

This is deja vu here, as I again find the solution simple and have already stated as much. Just post the estimated cost of a deck on its title tag once it is published in Established Decks.

[$120 Deck]

People interested in finding cheap decks can do so without the need for any forum. And they can be confident that the deck is not cutting cards.

Clark Kant

12-26-2007, 10:55 AM

Finn, that's just not true at all though. First, the decks would be built before a thread is made for them, as they are in the other fourms. So if a person can't put together a competitive build of a deck, it wouldn't be posted there.

I'll grant you, there are some cards that there are no replacements for. FoW in BBS is one example. Dark Confidant in Sui Black is another example. As is Ravager in Affinity, and a whole bunch of other cards.

But on the other hand, there are certain cards that are just not even close to essential to the deck. Chrome Mox is a card that most people play in BBS, but it's no where near a vital component of the deck. Almost none of the BBS builds that top 8ed at large tournaments ever run a single Chrome Mox. Similarly, the land destruction aspect of disruption (Sinkhole, Wasteland) is not what's vital to Sui Black. Sui Black absolutely needs to play disruption. But it's not absolutely vital that the disruption blow up lands. The deck can do well even those slots are instead used to play discard (Duress, Hymn, Hippie) and creature destruction (Smother, Ghastly Demise) and utility cards (Reanimate, Jitte) rather than the pricy land destruction spells that put the deck out of many peoples budgets.

The cards that are being replaced will never ever be vital components of the deck. That's not the point of the forum. And the cards that are added will never ever be bad cards that the deck shouldn't be playing. That's not the point either. Legacy is a large enough format that most every deck has about 80 cards in the maindeck it could run that are all exceptionally strong in the deck and work well. What a budget deck would be doing would be replacing the not essential expensive cards with the cheaper cards that are every bit as powerful.

The BBS list is pretty obvious. It's just the regular BBS list, but running Islands instead of Chrome Mox.

Here's an example of a Sui Black list taking budget into consideration...

4 Mishra's Factory
2 Cabal Pit
15 Swamp
4 Dark Ritual

4 Dark Confidant
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Hypnotic Specter
3 Nantuko Shade/Oona's Prowler

2 Umezawa's Jitte

4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach

4 Smother
2 Ghastly Demise

2 Reanimate
2 Powder Keg/Cabal Therapy

Sideboard:
4 Leyline of the Void

That's just a quick example of the build I'm using right now. It costs well under a $100 to build. But if you honestly think that the deck isn't competitive, that it is somehow inferior by definition to a standard Sui Black deck, I invite you to play it.

The deck has every bit as good a chance to win as traditional Sui Black, it just approaches disruption differently, but it's never the less very disruptive.

And I have no idea if it's the ideal build. If we had a budget forum, I would post the list there, and people can discuss if the deck should instead be running Diabolic Edict, or Vendetta over Ghastly Demise, if the deck should be playing Oona's Prowler or Rotting Giant instead of Nantuko Shade, whether the deck should be playing Cabal Therapy or Powder Keg, whats the ideal number of each card to run, what the sideboard should look like, whether the deck should be maindecking Leyline of the Void etc and ultimately arrive at an optimal build of Sui Black taking budget into consideration.

And once we arrive at said ideal build, we could write up a through article about the deck, outlining the card choices and why they were picked over the alternatives, how the deck performs against other top tier decks all while giving players an introduction to legacy, and we could try and get that article published on magicthegathering.com That's the point of the forum. We could get a good mix of articles published, some on competitive combo decks like Belcher, some on competitive control decks like BBS. All to show the nonlegacy players out there the multitudes of legacy decks, fitting every conceivable archeatype, they can be build that are competitive for a $100-$120.

If we can just encourage good standard players to build a good legacy deck on the side, because we show them that it's cheap to do. They can partake in legacy tournaments, increase attendence and thus the liklihood of having more and more tourneys.

And if that players likes legacy, likes the kind of decks that show up at legacy tournaments, they can later on invest in one of the uber expensive decks like Threshold that get all the attention nowadays, the only decks that nonlegacy players seem to know about. If not, it's not like they spent that much on the format. No harm, no foul.

That's what we mean when we say that the restriction pose a new deckbuilding challenge and task a little more creativity. But nevertheless, the ultimate build can be just as good as the traditional build.

And I think that with such a forum, we could easily build 30+ such decks, probably more as people get more and more creative with deckbuilding and strategies.

And here is where that argument breaks down.

I play both formats, and here a full T2 deck costs more or less the same than a full Legacy deck. For example, I have just finished my BG, and I spent much more in Reais (Brazilian currency) in it than I spent in my Faerie Stompy, even counting the Drakes playset.

I've built six competitive standard decks in my magic career. Decks that have won me numerous local tourneys. Never once did I need to spend more than $140-150 on a deck. Four of those six decks cost me well under a $100 actually. Very few standard decks cost anywhere near as much as most legacy decks cost to build. And if you're not a pro and don't have money to burn, it's foolish to build one of those decks.

Wazzup

12-26-2007, 11:05 AM

And here is where that argument breaks down.

I play both formats, and here a full T2 deck costs more or less the same than a full Legacy deck. For example, I have just finished my BG, and I spent much more in Reais (Brazilian currency) in it than I spent in my Faerie Stompy, even counting the Drakes playset.

Irrelevant. There could be a budget standard forum as well. The reason that some Standard decks are more expensive then Legacy decks shouldn't be a reason not to discuss budget decks in legacy in my humble opinion.

I want this to be true in a very Utopian way. But a lot of this simply is not. Having a budget is a being hobbled in a way your opponents will not be. It is not "just another limitation on the cardpool". And please pardon the elitist way this is going to sound, but budget decks that have purposely and consciously cut cards for non-performance reasons (I mean cost here) are not going to stack up. I do not need to learn how to face them. I see them all the time in round one. Then I pound them into a pulp and move on the same way any decent pilot with a quality deck will.

There is no need for a forum. I can see the discussion now.

"That's a good card, but too expensive."
"You can get them on ebay for $15 each."
"But that still takes us over the dollar cap."
"OK. How about try this instead. It loses a lot of punch, but atleast they're only 50 cents."

How is that scenario in need of a forum? Those decks can never hope to compete. And you know it will be a common one in there. I want very much for low-cost alternatives to be discussed and even highlighted, but by creating a forum where the cost is a factor in selecting cards, you are approaching the topic from the wrong end. A deck's pricetag must be dependent on its components, not the other way around.

This is deja vu here, as I again find the solution simple and have already stated as much. Just post the estimated cost of a deck on its title tag once it is published in Established Decks.

[$120 Deck]

People interested in finding cheap decks can do so without the need for any forum. And they can be confident that the deck is not cutting cards.

I agree on some points.. that's why solid rules or restrictions should be made BEFORE discussing. For example => max 120 bucks at www.site.com is easy for everyone. On various sites decklists can be valued.

On the other hand a pricetag is not a solution because different card solutions will provide different prices and it still leaves the effect of upgrading or downgrading the deck with different cards unspoken.

The point about budget in tournament play is not my experience. I disagree that budget = non competitive and going out in the first rounds. Magic is still a game of skill no matter how expensive the deck is. I nearly missed a top 8 spot with a very rogue ww shadow deck at the nationals 8 years ago when I still played. Beating very expensive netdecks. It can still be done and part of the job is to find the weaks spots in the current format. I enjoy beating netdeckers with commons and uncommons. I enjoy surprising everyone with well tuned builds in the metagame. And I'm sure others will as well.

Clearly this forum won't be interesting for you and I suggest you won't visit it. I hope you can resist the tempation of flaming something that other people do like. I don't see much disadvantages, right?

I like to start up a new view in the discussion. Who would be interested? How many people think they will actively write on budget legacy forum?

edgewalker

12-26-2007, 11:40 AM

I was under the impression evolution in magic came from trying to make your deck better so you could beat the competition. According to Clark and Wazzup, I've been wrong for the past 18 years of my life.

EDIT:

Excellent!

Why not just start in the development forum. [BUDGET] can indicate the "format". Rules and restrictions can be made clear in the first post of the topic.

No, just no. How many more people need to come in here and tell you people money isn't the issue. It is AN issue but not THE issue. In order to shut everyone up take the decks from Clark's first post and make a thread for them in the Format Discussion and sticky it. There is no need to make an actual forum. People can see for themselves what's budget and what's not simply by looking up card prices of existing decks. We don't need a forum dedicated to building viable cheap decks because that isn't the purpose of the site. The purpose of the site is to build the best decks regardless of the restrictions. Christ if you want to develop a budget deck, post in the Developing forum, it's not Rocket Surgery.

The issue with Legacy isn't money, it's prize support and the availability of tournaments. Think I'm lying? Just think about it for a really really really long time. (I know that's hard) But you can have all the budget decks and players in the world but if you don't have a tournament to play at yo're SOL, or if you don't have a tournament people want to play in because the prize support sucks, you're SOL. It's if you make the prizes more appealing or make tournaments more availible, people will show up with whatever the hell they want. They'll lose, but they'll show up. They'll want to win next time so they're improve their decks, thus bringing us AGAIN to Darwin's version of magic. People aren't scared out of Legacy because of price, they're scared out of Legacy because there aren't enough local tournaments and the ones that are around, the prizes suck.

Clark Kant

12-26-2007, 11:48 AM

Yes you are, about multiple things actually (not the least of which is the fact that Magic hasn't been around for 18 years). Evolution happens for a number of reasons, attempts to make budget alternatives one of them.

Bird shit began as a budget alternative to Vintage decks. Fish did as well (atleast the initial merfolk builds). Both decks evolved to extremely competitive. And bird shit went on to forever alter Legacy as well. You now know that deck as Threshold.

The same goes with Ichorid in vintage. People saw it as the deck in vintage with the best chance of working without power, the best deck to budgetify as you say. For the first few months of the deck's life, the deck would have been improved by Black Lotus, Underground Sea and Mox Jet to let you hardcast some of the creatures to meet the Dread Return requirement. The more expensive nonbudget mana versions of the deck were superior at that deck's inception. But people were drawn to building a vintage deck that didn't require the power nine, even if it was worse than the powered versions of the same deck (I was one of them). With the influx of nonpowered players to the deck, the deck evolved rapidly, found better cards, found a superior kill condition, then Bridge from Below was printed, and by then, the budget version of Ichroid already proved to be superior to the mana versions, Bridge just sealed the deal.

edgewalker

12-26-2007, 12:01 PM

I'm aware magic was around longer than I have been. I was simply stating all the years I have been playing I've been wrong (reading for the win, "my life")

Actually Fish wasn't so much built on a budget but was designed to beat decks that abused power and other broken tools. Fish my defanition is a metagame deck, so logically if you want to beat a metagame that is powered, you have to play cards that punish people for abusing power.

Threshold in this format kinda evolved from birdshit, kinda didn't, but we'll agree to disagree.

I'm not even going to talk about Ichorid because it's not a money issue it's a strategy issue, you don't play cards from your hand, you play them from your library. Also BAZAAR OF BAGHDAD is maaaaaaad budget. The decks that tried to substitute something where DECENT at best.

So, you have three decks, what about every other viable deck in vintage history? Evolving doesn't come from creating the cheaper deck, the cost is just a by product of trying to be better than your opposition. Every plays power? Play cards that punish people who abuse power. It just happens that those cards tend to be cheaper. Everything else besides the need to build the best deck is simply a by product of that aformentioned need.

Finn

12-26-2007, 01:36 PM

It can still be done and part of the job is to find the weaks spots in the current format. I enjoy beating netdeckers with commons and uncommons. I enjoy surprising everyone with well tuned builds in the metagame. And I'm sure others will as well.

Clearly this forum won't be interesting for you and I suggest you won't visit it. I hope you can resist the tempation of flaming something that other people do like. I don't see much disadvantages, right?No, man. That is not where I stand.

Your reasons for wanting to beat the current environment is an excellent one. Your approach is the same way I feel. Your self imposed limitation of commons and uncommons is where we differ.

Anyway, good luck on this. I think it is destined to failure. I hope I am wrong.

Anarky87

12-26-2007, 01:52 PM

4) Being on a budget makes you creative. Being creative is what drives the evolution in the format. Netdecking or finetuning doesn't.Being on a budget makes you creative and being creative drives the format. Therefore, Budget decks drive the format.

Quadrupeds have four legs and all rabbits have four legs. Therefore all quadrupeds are rabbits.

Too bad that just isn't true. Being creative helps bring new ideas (sometimes) to the format, but saying that working on a budget makes you creative and that that creativeness therefore drives the format is a pretty long stretch. It doesn't take much creativeness to be able to pick out worse version of good cards. I don't need to be a creative genius to know that Stupor is a terrible Hymn, or that Watchwolf is worse than Tarmogoyf.

Netdecking and finetuning help the format because people want to play the best version of their deck. Therefore, they're going to play the best possibly choices and cards multiple times in tournaments to get the perfected list. And when they do so, post their results and experiences online for others who might want to pilot the deck.

There is nothing wrong with netdecking and fine tuning (unless you're a zealous casual player). Saying that being on a budget breeds creativity and that that creativeness drives the format IS wrong.

Wazzup

12-26-2007, 04:01 PM

This discussion is getting rather strange in my opinion. I have no idea where people are so afraid off. It might not work... Ok that's no problem. Then we close it down again.. no harm done. What's the worst that can happen?

Budget is not only downgrading top tier decks. I was for example really amazed to compare high tide/reset with the spring tide build. That's the creativity and evolution that I'm talking about. For those who haven't tried the deck:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2594

It became a different archtype, works different than solidarity and could be a nice choise in certain meta.

To challenge myself being on a budget AND being competitive brings out the best in me. Challenges me to be on top of the game.

For those who play to become world champion, it might not be the best option. For those who step into a new format or for those who want the best budget setup for certain meta. This subforum could be an addition. (with good ruling and enough participation). Not all topic will be superb quality decks but some stones will appear gems. These decks will be able to make junp to the premier league of legacy decks.

And of course I agree that more tournaments, better price support and better access to older cards would be great for the format too.

At least that's my opinion.

DeathwingZERO

12-26-2007, 06:12 PM

The problem is putting out something on the forum that:

1) only pertains to a very small margin of the players that would ever come here, because we want to win and shape the format as opposed to listing subpar decks due to constraints

and

2) requires immense amounts of moderation to keep ideas at an agreeable amount of money to pertain to "budget" standards, as well as any other constraints that regular deck lists put in N&D don't ever have to go through

will cause a rather big mess in a very, very short amount of time. Especially if it gains attention by a lot of people you wouldn't otherwise want on the forums.

Again, what it comes down to is not budget. If you're not dedicated to play in tournaments, you won't be willing to shell out the money. If you want to compete but want to compare prize payouts and tournament/card availability compared to Standard, you won't be willing to shell out the money. And the big one:

If you are not willing to do enough research into the format to even get to the Source or other sites and find good deck lists so you can price them out yourself, you won't be willing to shell out the money.

Dedication, support, and competition. That's all you need to get into Legacy. If you're not even willing to look over lists on your own and determine with very simple math skills that you can't afford it, you really shouldn't be playing Magic anyways.

People know we have cheaper decks, all formats have their share. Doesn't mean it's our responsibility to do all the work for them based on their personal preferences and financial capabilities, and especially not at the cost of having to keep the board in top shape when players who are here just for that aspect start leaking into the real threads.

Clark Kant

12-26-2007, 11:48 PM

Being on a budget makes you creative and being creative drives the format. Therefore, Budget decks drive the format.

Quadrupeds have four legs and all rabbits have four legs. Therefore all quadrupeds are rabbits.

Too bad that just isn't true. Being creative helps bring new ideas (sometimes) to the format, but saying that working on a budget makes you creative and that that creativeness therefore drives the format is a pretty long stretch. It doesn't take much creativeness to be able to pick out worse version of good cards. I don't need to be a creative genius to know that Stupor is a terrible Hymn, or that Watchwolf is worse than Tarmogoyf.

Netdecking and finetuning help the format because people want to play the best version of their deck. Therefore, they're going to play the best possibly choices and cards multiple times in tournaments to get the perfected list. And when they do so, post their results and experiences online for others who might want to pilot the deck.

There is nothing wrong with netdecking and fine tuning (unless you're a zealous casual player). Saying that being on a budget breeds creativity and that that creativeness drives the format IS wrong.

You realize that the first statement has nothing in common with the second right.

The first statement (as well as my statement) is in the logical format... A is in the subset of B. B is in the subset of C. Therefore, A is in the subset of C. Always true.

The second statement (as well as your statement about rabbits) is in the format... A is in the subset of C. B is in the subset of C. Therefore A is in the subset of B. How could you possibly not see the difference between the two.

I suggest reading up on the rules of logic.

I also suggest throwing up straw men arguments about wanting to replace Hymns with Stupors, or Goyfs with Watchwolf. no one anywhere was saying anything like that. We're not talking about using subpar cards, we're talking about trying different strategies, like running discard and reanimates over land destruction. Finding alternative approaches to disruption and such that aren't restrained by budget needs DOES promote creativity.

Alfred

12-27-2007, 12:02 AM

You know what, I totally agree with the OP. Most of the complaints that I've heard from friends about the format is it's cost prohibitive nature. If more than one cheap, competative deck could be fielded, it would do wonders to make this a more populous format. Good idea Clark Kant!

mujadaddy

12-27-2007, 12:59 AM

The way to get "budget Legacy" decks more widespread would, in fact, be to post decklists...

...but not in the way that most of the proponents here suggest.

My suggestion is to come up with some viable Tier 2 decks that pack complete common jank. This allows people to drop minimal $ (like $40, tops) for a complete (Tier 2, admittedly) deck, and then allows them to slowly build a collection of "less-jank".

Then we get loads of scrubs to enter tourneys that players with Tier 1 decks can mop up :laugh:

Standard just pisses me off to no end. It's the same principle that Games Workshop uses to drive sales figures into the coming year (that is, make all the old stuff obselete... ) It makes me think of the old saying:

"What's better than winning Worlds in Standard?"

"Not being fucking retarded."

Clark Kant

12-27-2007, 10:01 AM

porcupinetreeman

12-27-2007, 10:46 AM

I think it would be a good idea to start a budget/casual section with known budget decklists. Many of my friends like to play older cards/legacy style, but they don't want to spend too much. They like to be able to play a fun cheap casual deck that is somewhat competitive in legacy. Here are some decks I've seen that are cheap fun and competitive.

Budget Pox
Vial Affinity w/ Ravager
MUC w/o FOW ( prop, shackles, counters)
NivMizzet Reanimater
Ninja's !!!
Burn

Ewokslayer

12-27-2007, 10:56 AM

For example, Spring Tide over Solidarity.
Isn't this an example of one of the problem with "Budget" Decks? They only stay budget for as long as the deck isn't good.
Solidarity started out as a very budget deck. The original deck didn't even run FOW or Fetches. Resets were about a buck a piece. But what happened. The deck proved that it was decent so more work was done on it. So better (more expensive) cards were added to the deck and the price of Resets skyrocketed.

nastynate

12-27-2007, 11:03 AM

No that IS a bad idea. No one here is suggesting using jank cards like Stupor over Hymns. Why would we? Hymns, along with most other good cards in legacy are cheap to get.

Only some of the good cards are inexpensive. Many of the staples are quite pricey (Force of Will, Duals, Fetches, Goyfs, and Thoughtseize for example).

(Which is why we should by all rights have several competitive cheap decks, and a big reason we don't is that no one is making an honest effort to do that, people are instead splashing duals and fetchlands even when splashing a color doesn't add anything to the deck).

Nobody splashes duals and fetches just because they have them; there is always a better reason for a color splash. This is a forum dedicated to competitive Legacy, not a forum dedicated to building the most expensive pimp deck possible. Look at goblins for example. People splash green for tin-street hooligan and krosan grip (which helps to deal with problems like chalice of the void and counterbalance). People splash black for cabal therapy and thoughtseize/duress to help fight combo decks. People do not splash tertiary colors because they think basic lands are lame.

What we're suggesting is finding alternate strategies that don't require as much money. For example, Spring Tide over Solidarity. Using strong cheap discard (duress, hymn, hypnotic) and utility cards like Reanimate, in place of expensive land destruction (sinkhole) in Sui Black.

Spring Tide is terrible. I'd be ashamed of myself if I pointed a new player towards it. "Spend money on this deck; it'll cost you under a hundred bucks, but you won't win with it." Money well spent...sigh

Many people do not actually run sinkhole in Suicide Black decks though (surprise, surprise), but the reason for doing so is not because of budget concerns, but because it simply isn't good enough. Most successful suicide black decks, however, are now running black fetches, bayous, and tarmogoyfs, and that sure isn't saving people money.

Advocating budget conscious substitutions is never going to work, unless those substitutions improve the deck. People never want to play suboptimal cards for budget reasons (even if they don't have the money for the good stuff), because butchering a deck with suboptimal cards is asking to lose. Good cards usually cost more money, so in turn good decks usually cost more money.

Some competitive decks are budget friendly however, and perhaps we should point new players towards these decks with giant neon signs. (Despite the sarcasm here, I am somewhat serious.)

That does build creativity, enhance the format, and could well produce tier one decks once given enough development.

You are reaching the wrong conclusions. Good deck builders test cards without taking their price into account, and it just so happens that most good cards tend to cost more money...there is more demand for good cards than bad ones.

As soon as you start to ignore cards simply because they cost too much, you are limiting the options you have for a deck and for potential creativity. The same could be said for ignoring inexpensive cards, but nobody is going to ignore a good card for costing less money. I'm thrilled that certain cards I play frequently only cost me a few bucks, but that didn't stop me from acknowledging that Force of Will and Tarmogoyf are pretty darned good too.

I do understand the point you are trying to make about relatively inexpensive decks. They certainly make it much easier to bring new blood into the format, but only if those decks actually have a chance of competing will those players continue to explore the options of the Legacy format; people don't like to go 0-2 drop every tournament they enter.

What you should really be focused on are the decks that by their very nature cost less money to assemble. Dragon Stompy and Affinity are the only two that come to mind. Optimally assembled these two decks cost about $100.00 (barring berserk in affinity). Promote the successful inexpensive decks to new players, but do not encourage them to ignore the expensive ones. Everyone knows that better cards usually cost more money (even the noobies), but show them that certain decks of relatively reasonable price can compete if built correctly. Maybe the opening primer of each deck should contain a quick mention of the estimated cost to build such a deck from scratch, just so people know what they are getting into.

I don't think a "budget" sub-forum however, promotes legacy to new players very well. Budget forums tend to get cluttered with terrible decks, suboptimal card choices, and uncompetitive players. They all quickly devolve into casual play forums. The Source is not about casual play, and I certainly don't want it to be. Promoting casual play does not improve the lot of the Legacy format.

Anarky87

12-27-2007, 11:53 AM

You realize that the first statement has nothing in common with the second right.

The first statement (as well as my statement) is in the logical format... A is in the subset of B. B is in the subset of C. Therefore, A is in the subset of C. Always true.

The second statement (as well as your statement about rabbits) is in the format... A is in the subset of C. B is in the subset of C. Therefore A is in the subset of B. How could you possibly not see the difference between the two.

I suggest reading up on the rules of logic.

I also suggest throwing up straw men arguments about wanting to replace Hymns with Stupors, or Goyfs with Watchwolf. no one anywhere was saying anything like that. We're not talking about using subpar cards, we're talking about trying different strategies, like running discard and reanimates over land destruction. Finding alternative approaches to disruption and such that aren't restrained by budget needs DOES promote creativity.

His point was specifically that working on a budget (and therefore not playing with the better cards) is the creativity that drives the format. Which is not the case. Playing the best cards you can and NOT being held down by budgetary constraints is what drives the format. And that's what was accomplished by my statement.

If not playing the best cards you can in the format is creativity (Budget), than the format must be driven by budget decks and cards. Except this is false. That's akin to saying: limiting yourself to only 7th graders in College football helps build creativity, therefore all 7th grade football teams must be the driving force behind College football. What does it matter if the logical pattern is correct if the outcome is false?

Just because you can put together a good deck of uncommons and commons, doesn't mean you therefore have endless creativity to drive the format, because you're restricting yourself in your perception of creativity. Just because I can go to my FNM's and Top 4 with a pretty cheap deck (that way I don't have to commit to the format) doesn't mean I could break the format wide open if I wanted to, because of my massive creativity.

Finding alternative approaches to disruption and such that aren't restrained by budget needs DOES promote creativity.Then why do you need a budget forum if you don't want to be held down by budgetary restraints? You want a whole forum to talk about how you've slightly changed Sui (example) to include a reanimation package...Why not just post that in the existing thread? This is also my point, which has gone unanswered.

people are instead splashing duals and fetchlands even when splashing a color doesn't add anything to the deck).What decks are doing this, honestly?

What we're suggesting is finding alternate strategies that don't require as much money.
Finding alternative approaches to disruption and such that aren't restrained by budget needs DOES promote creativity.You want inexpensive alternatives, but don't want to be held down by inexpensive alternatives? Which is it?

What you should really be focused on are the decks that by their very nature cost less money to assemble. Dragon Stompy and Affinity are the only two that come to mind.

My point exactly, and these decks already have their own forum and thread. You don't need another one.

Slag

12-27-2007, 12:11 PM

I don't think a "budget" sub-forum however, promotes legacy to new players very well. Budget forums tend to get cluttered with terrible decks, suboptimal card choices, and uncompetitive players. They all quickly devolve into casual play forums. The Source is not about casual play, and I certainly don't want it to be. Promoting casual play does not improve the lot of the Legacy format.

There's definitely potential for this to happen. I'm not convinced that budget deck discussion would necessarily be a bad thing, however it needs two things to work. First, it needs to be put into perspective of the rest of the format. Discussion of budget decks would be helpful in a greater work introducing legacy to new players, preferably involving history, rules, good decks, etc. Budget decks in this context would be budget just for the ease of building them, but should pave the way to more competitive decks. Second, the discussion would really need a few (or preferably several) admins, mods, or adepts to take it on as a pet project, and carefully watch, moderate, and guide the discussion, so it doesn't degenerate into a steaming pile of poo.
Decks like burn, sui black, and the like should not be discussed in budget forums, because they should be looked at as real decks, and be tested with the best cards possible regardless of price.

FoolofaTook

12-27-2007, 12:14 PM

There's definitely potential for this to happen. I'm not convinced that budget deck discussion would necessarily be a bad thing, however it needs two things to work. First, it needs to be put into perspective of the rest of the format. Discussion of budget decks would be helpful in a greater work introducing legacy to new players, preferably involving history, rules, good decks, etc. Budget decks in this context would be budget just for the ease of building them, but should pave the way to more competitive decks. Second, the discussion would really need a few (or preferably several) admins, mods, or adepts to take it on as a pet project, and carefully watch, moderate, and guide the discussion, so it doesn't degenerate into a steaming pile of poo.
Decks like burn, sui black, and the like should not be discussed in budget forums, because they should be looked at as real decks, and be tested with the best cards possible regardless of price.

I think a Budget Deck forum would have to be heavily moderated and used just as a resource, not as a place for discussion.

The idea would be to have lists mirrored there from either DTB or ATW if the list met the definition of budget, whatever that moderators considered that to be. Discussion of the decks really should be limited to the DTB and ATW threads.

mujadaddy

12-27-2007, 01:06 PM

No that IS a bad idea. No one here is suggesting using jank cards like Stupor over Hymns. Why would we? Hymns, along with most other good cards in legacy are cheap to get. (Which is why we should by all rights have several competitive cheap decks, and a big reason we don't is that no one is making an honest effort to do that, people are instead splashing duals and fetchlands even when splashing a color doesn't add anything to the deck). What we're suggesting is finding alternate strategies that don't require as much money. For example, Spring Tide over Solidarity. Using strong cheap discard (duress, hymn, hypnotic) and utility cards like Reanimate, in place of expensive land destruction (sinkhole) in Sui Black.

That does build creativity, enhance the format, and could well produce tier one decks once given enough development.

Well, I for one have the necessary perspective to know the difference. However, if "Hymns, along with most other good cards in legacy are cheap to get", then don't those fit in budget?

I wouldn't dream of building a black deck w/o Hymns. There are other staples in the 2-6 dollar range that others could suggest. It's the cards in the $10+ range that really, really help decks rise above weaksauce that the entire idea of a budget deck attempts to get around.

When I said complete common jank, I was probably raising an image in your mind of, as you said, Stupor. But what I meant to raise was the idea of Duress vs. Thoughtseize, or, more appropriately, the idea of coming up with lists that work, that can dominate the kitchen table without costing the kitchen sink.

The idea is to raise awareness & interest in the format. And in an eternal format, lots of newer players simply aren't going to be aware of the older cardbase. New stuph that's still in Standard or Extended is in the general case not as good as some old uncommons.

That's all I meant.

kirdape3

12-27-2007, 02:29 PM

Even with Legacy having the widest available effective cardbase, there aren't so many cards that are really good in Legacy. Get those cards if you want to compete. If you don't want to get the cards, don't expect to be effective in Legacy. Some of them aren't cheap. A set of dual lands, all forty, will set you back $800 or more. Onslaught fetchlands are also prohibitive; with it being Extended season expect to pay upwards of $12 apiece for nonblue fetches and $15 apiece for those that say 'Go find an Island'. Forces of Will are $15-20 apiece. Tarmogoyfs are $140 a set. And so on.

Bluntly, if you have limited funds available to spend on Legacy cards, pick one deck and assemble that and nothing else.

Clark Kant

12-29-2007, 05:13 PM

Well, I for one have the necessary perspective to know the difference. However, if "Hymns, along with most other good cards in legacy are cheap to get", then don't those fit in budget?

I wouldn't dream of building a black deck w/o Hymns. There are other staples in the 2-6 dollar range that others could suggest. It's the cards in the $10+ range that really, really help decks rise above weaksauce that the entire idea of a budget deck attempts to get around.

When I said complete common jank, I was probably raising an image in your mind of, as you said, Stupor. But what I meant to raise was the idea of Duress vs. Thoughtseize, or, more appropriately, the idea of coming up with lists that work, that can dominate the kitchen table without costing the kitchen sink.

The idea is to raise awareness & interest in the format. And in an eternal format, lots of newer players simply aren't going to be aware of the older cardbase. New stuph that's still in Standard or Extended is in the general case not as good as some old uncommons.

That's all I meant.

Well then I agree.

The new sets have the best creatures/threats. But the best disruption spells (Hymn, Smother, Sinkhole) are all old cards and most players looking into legay probably aren't aware of them.

nastynate

12-29-2007, 06:09 PM

The new sets have the best creatures/threats. But the best disruption spells (Hymn, Smother, Sinkhole) are all old cards and most players looking into legay probably aren't aware of them.

Smother seems like a pretty new card to me. I must be getting old.

FoolofaTook

12-29-2007, 07:26 PM

Bluntly, if you have limited funds available to spend on Legacy cards, pick one deck and assemble that and nothing else.

You can also pick a style of play and assemble for the style. Savannah, Taiga and Bayou's, Windswept Heath and Wooded Foothills, all relatively cheap for duals and fetches, and a playset of Tarmogoyfs and you are ready to look at a wide range of aggro and aggro/control decks.

If you want to try the blue decks it's much more expensive.

dontbiteitholmes

12-31-2007, 02:59 AM

This discussion is still going nowhere. Basically you want to make a whole forum for crappier decks that are cheaper, that idea sucks. The idea I told you was better is to make a thread and link to real decks that are already cheap in list form.

Noone wants to help anyone with their crappy "budget" version of any deck on this forum. I fail to see how devoting time to crappy versions of decks "helps the format". If you want a deck for under $200 I can give you a list of decks to choose, if you want to play Threshhold but don't want to buy Duals then wait 10 years and play 15 proxy Legacy. Or we can make a whole forum of absolute crap, but whatever. It would be kinda like this.

Guy 1- "MY DECK
Stompyish deck with Troll instead of Goyf's."

Guy 2- "I can't afford Trolls or that other card you listed, instead of discussing how to make this subpar deck better we will discuss which is the least crappy card I could put in place of those cards to make it even slightly less crappy."

Clark Kant

12-31-2007, 07:11 AM

blah blah blah, I'll just repeat a ton of stuff people already claimed and had discredited half a dozen times in this thread.

edgewalker

12-31-2007, 09:51 AM

Nothing he said has actually been disproven yet since everyone is simply stating opinions and not facts, if you could do perhaps a study over the next few years on the effects of cheaper decks in legacy without any biased results (which I think you are uncapable of) then maybe you could disprove the the argument against the issue.

With that said, I think what you're missing is despite the majority of the people posting saying that money isn't the major issue, it is instead something else like prize support etc etc, you refuse to acknowledge such arguments, even when they come from adepts or mods (those clearly of a better understanding of the format than you)

At this point, I feel this friend isn't going to go anywhere and should be dealt with appropriately, since arguments have been given, and instead of being addressed, the are simply mocked.

nastynate

12-31-2007, 10:58 AM

blah blah blah, I'll just repeat a ton of stuff people already claimed and had discredited half a dozen times in this thread.

That's really going to help your case. You can't discredit somebody for their ideas and thoughts unless they are proven wrong...he didn't say the sky is green, he said that budget decks are handicapped vs. decks made without monetary restrictions. Kinda irrefutable actually; a deeper card pool means more options. Just because somebody plays with goyf and force of will doesn't mean they refuse to play with inexpensive cards. We're all ecstatic when good cards don't cost us a bloody fortune, both those of us on a strict budget and those of us with more disposable income.

Look if you really want people to support your idea, put your money where your mouth is. I see that recently you've been advocating fetches, bayous, goys, and berserks in suicide black. I don't see you posting budget friendly decks, so if you want to prove that you've got a leg to stand on, post something that gives some credibility to your position. Post a competitive $100.00 deck that isn't instantly made better by the inclusion of fetches, duals, Fow, Goyf, or some other $20.00+ cards, and we'll all rejoice. We've got dragon stompy and affinity; what else is there?

Make a list of the competitive budget decks we already have (with links) and PM it to the Mods. Maybe they'll sticky it, and maybe it'll help new people in the format find a gateway deck they can build until they have a collection of Legacy staples sufficient to expand their options. But the budget decks linked better be good enough to give people a chance in tournament play, or the whole experiment will blow up in our faces...people don't like getting creamed.

Clark Kant

12-31-2007, 11:30 AM

Maybe you should read the thread and his post too. If he was arguing that we don't need a forum for budget decks, that could be argued. But that's not what he posted.

He simply substitutes the word budget deck with the word crappy deck, and just repeats the phrase four times. Apparently Dragon Stompy, Death and Taxes, Belcher, Burn, and all the cheap to build decks out there are crap and we're idiots for taking them to tournaments.

For the millionth fucking time, no one here is talking about running crappy cards and building or developing crappy decks. No one is talking about running Watchwolfs in place of Tarmogoyfs. We're talking about finding and developing alternate strategies (including preexisting budget strategies like Spring Tide, Dragon Stompy, Suicide Black, Death and Taxes as well as developing brand new ones), and running cards that are actually good in the format like Hymn but just happen to be cheap.

And for the millionth fucking time, no one here is talkinga about building or developing crappy decks (a phrase he used 4 fucking times). Dragon Stompy, Solidarity, Suicide Black, Death and Taxes and several other decks started out as budget alternatives and guess what, now they're all in the legacy metagame forum. And every last one of them or atleast very close variants of them like Spring Tide can be built for under the $120 budget limit. And on top of all those, there's plenty of already budget decks (burn, affinity), that happen to be competitive. All in all, there's 30+ competitive budget strategies already worth exploring and expanding on, and probably countless others waiting to be discovered.

If you don't think we need a seperate forum, that's fine. But for the last fucking time, stop saying that budget decks = crappy decks. That's just idoitic.

So yes, if a person can't read the fucking thread and see that no one is arguing for building crappy decks or running crappy cards, that budget decks isn't interchangable for crappy decks and instead repeats the phrase "crappy decks" in place of budget decks four times, then I'm not going to bother responding to it. I only did so now because you guys once again miss the entire point. But I don't expect that to change so unless people are willing to talk about what's actually being proposed, a forum for developing good decks and strategies that happen to be budget, don't expect me to respond.

Budget was how several competitive decks in the format started out, with people trying to create innovative budget foils for the format (decks that they could afford to build and would be competitive). Budget deckbuilders are responsible for a lot of innovation. Probably not the majority of it, but a significant chunk of it. People who can afford all the cards can just net deck the best deck in the format, make some tweaks and make it their own. It's the budget players that have to throw the best decks out the window as they can't afford to build them, and instead find a usually completely new strategy or approach that can foil the best decks.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people here started out like me, on a tight budget, having to win within those constraints till they could win and trade up to better cards.

So to say that all budget decks are crap and by extension that all players constrained by a budget build and play crappy decks isn't just provably false, it's offensive.

Edit: Okay, you just edited your post as I was posting. I agree with a lot of it now. It's reasonable if you want to propose a sticky thread rather than a forum. I haven't heard from the mods about the sticky thread and I don't think I'm the best person to represent the budget community either, most of my decks (Fairie Stompy, Threshold etc are decidedly not budget). But if no one else is willing to do it, I'll be happy to.

edgewalker

12-31-2007, 12:07 PM

Clark please read my whole post, I know you have trouble doing that.

Budget was how several competitive decks in the format started out, with people trying to create innovative budget foils for the format (decks that they could afford to build and would be competitive). Budget deckbuilders are responsible for a lot of innovation. Probably not the majority of it, but a significant chunk of it. People who can afford all the cards can just net deck the best deck in the format, make some tweaks and make it their own. It's the budget players that have to throw the best decks out the window as they can't afford to build them, and instead find a usually completely new strategy or approach that can foil the best decks.

Once again, you only hear/see what you want to see. You're not looking at the bigger picture. You simply see that these decks where "cheaper" and that was the only characteristic about them. Hopefully, you know that's incorrect. The majority of those decks are designed as metagame foils. That is their sole purpose, they are metagame foils. I will say it again, they are metagame foils. If they are inexpensive to build, that is purely by coincidence. If you're metagame is filled with threshold, you better be playing something with 3spheres and chalices. The creators didn't go around saying, "gee I want to make a cheap deck that beats deck x and y" No they said, "I want a deck that beats deck x and y" Money has never been an issue for these decks, their price tag is purely second thought. Solidarity was the same way when it was started, (before the split) it was supposed to counter landstill which put a lot of disruption into dealing with permanents. How do you beat that? Play a mono colored combo deck that plays no permanents. The fact that all the cards where relatively cheap at the time is a bonus.

Now, I do have to agree with you on the difference between budget and cheap. Budget, obviously, is something no one wants to deal with, and I agree with what you're trying to do. However, I don't think the entire legacy community should be up in arms about it, nor do I think we need a subforum, or even a sticky'd thread. If you can't trust players to do their homework, and compare decks and their prices, then you're not giving them enough credit. If I'm wrong, and they are that lazy, I don't think I want them in the community. I think if you should have started a thread regarding the trouble with legacy, it should have been about the availability of tournament scenes or prize support. No amount of cheap decks are going to help the format if there is no place to play them or if the prizes aren't worth the effort to play them.