Mark Rosewater writes:Quote The rebuttal from the Type I ...

[jhaggs]

Mark Rosewater writes:

Quote The rebuttal from the Type I community is that the format has a number of “budget” decks. My response? Baloney! On several accounts. First, the so-called budget decks are not actually on par with the top tier of decks. I do look at the decks that win the higher profile tournaments and I’m sorry, I’m not seeing $50 decks making a whole lot of top 8’s (yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that – exceptions). Second, almost every budget deck I’ve seen posted can be improved by adding an expensive card, most often more than one. Third, truly playing a format does not mean I have only one or two choices. If finances prevent me from playing the majority of the competitive decks available then the format does in fact have a “high barrier to entry.”

I realize that many feel that this post should be entered into thefram's thread about Rosewater's type 1 article.  If that is the overwhelming consensus then by all means lock this thread.  However, I strongly feel that this issue is an important one, one that deserves its own thread.  An issue that if it can bear fruit, may become the building blocks to ensure the incorporation of many new players into our format.  Recruiting more players can and will lead to a more visible presence of our format to Wizards of the Coast.  I have PM several people about this issue with little interest.  After this article, I think its time that it was given considerable attention.

The issue at hand and the purpose of this thread is to discuss and explore this topic:

If the type one community can concentrate more resources into building several great budget decks that can consistently perform at a high level, it'll spur more interest into the format.  With more players indoctrinated into the format who truly feel that they can compete will lead to a more visual type 1 presence.

I know that many will instantly reject this notion and they maybe completely justified in saying so.  Further, they may also be able to make the claim that an idea of this nature can easily be dismissed as delusional.  Other arguments can be made to say that this idea goes against what type 1 is all about.  Budget players already have their format.  However, I would urge that in fact if this "budget revolution" can become a viable deck option for some, we would in fact recruit so many new faces.  With a higher type 1 popluation, Wizards would be much more inclined to expand the type 1 format into hopefully what type 2 is today.

Imagine this:  Decks that could be constructed that didn't need power to have an explosive start to win.  Decks that could be constructed where they didn't need to add a thousand dollars to improve them.  Decks that negated the viability of expensive cards.  Decks that could be built for a reasonable cost that could actually win a major tournament.  Wouldn't this promote more players into the format?  Would more players prefer to play a format where the card pool is expotentially larger?  Wouldn't this unlock the stigma's that confront type 1 as a format for a very select few?  Wouldn't tournaments be more prevelant with more players and more competition?  

I really feel that if members from this site could just for a while, refocused their efforts away from inserting the same usual suspect of cards when creating new builds and really went out of their way to create builds that could be made and played by the majority of the magic community, we would see a major resurgence of interest.

I think creating a budget deck that won a major tournament would have an enormously positive impact on our format.  It would really open the eyes of so many players that they too could compete against someone who has been playing for 7-8 years.  That they wouldn't need to break the bank in order to play what is easily the most enjoyable and interesting format.

I am a pretty optimist person by nature and maybe this idea is too idealistic and in fact "strictly wrong".  But there is no denying the fact that if a budget deck won, and that victory wasn't considered an anomaly, the ramifications would greatly benefit the overall goal of our format...which is to prove beyond a preponderance of doubt that or format is how magic should be played.  Clearly, Rosewater and others read articles written by Oscar, Stephen, and others.  Obviously they have looked to this website extensively for the format's metagame and for format data in how to properly regulate the type 1 scene via the B&R list.  Knowing that we have their attention, why not take this opportunity to teach other players who have been too shy to consider our format that in fact they can now compete.

I believe that we have a large enough card pool where a winning budget deck can emerge.  I also believe that themanadrain has the most qualified personal to create such builds.  In order for this to actually take place it will take someone or a group of people to step up and help make such a deck possible.

Agree?  Disagree?  Am I completely off my rocker?  Is this thread complete nonsense and too utopia oriented?  Or does this idea have some merit for discussion.  Let me know what you think...

[Mage of Dreams]

Budget decks suffer a major problem that may be insurmountable. The majority of cards that could help them be competitive are generally by nature cards that have to be restricted.
Watch an Extended Tinker Deck play. It's almost as fast as T1 and could even compete with a few tweaks. However, there is no way unrestricted Grim Monolith and Tinker should be allowed in T1.
One thing that could help explore the idea though, is if everyone who posted a Deck List for discussion also included either an alternate Deck List for a budget build or if they listed what card substitutes they would make next to the preferred card.

[Dr. Sylvan]

There's no way to make a deck better by ignoring the most efficient spells ever printed. Let's look at the steps you have to start with to make a budget deck that isn't Undeniably Worse than the same deck with Power.

(1) Nonblue - If it's blue, Ancestral Recall is better than any other card you could possibly be playing. Since the deck isn't blue, you don't have Force of Will. Since you don't have Force of Will, you automatically have a serious problem with combo decks. Fish attempts to break this rule, but everyone is aware that the budget versions are strictly inferior.

(2) Noncombo - You yourself cannot be playing an optimal combo deck without multiple bling-bling cards.

(3) Noncontrol - A control deck without mana acceleration is not capable of keeping up. Even if you allow Mana Drain in your budget possibilities, you are still subject to the first rule. Nonblue control, while it is one of my favorite ways to play, is simply crap. Enchantress and Parfait are tools of a bygone era, and they can't reemerge without several new tricks. A black-based control deck has the same problem: it is not blue, and therefore it is crap against both blue decks and nonblue combo decks that stand up to them.

These three constraints alone leave you with some kind of budget aggro--which is still worse when you play it without Moxen and Black Lotus. We should all settle for Fish, and admit budgetary defeat. The better solution than trying to undo the avalanche is to go with the flow and hold proxy tournaments now that we have been reassured once again that there will not be any reprints.

[Blitzbold]

Avi Flamholz posted a small series of budget decks on Londes.com recently, and some of them might be interesting.

I admit that budget decks are not able to make regular approaches to type 1 tournaments' top 8 spot, but I disagree that non-powered decks do not have a shot.
Following the discussion about Gay/r I am convinced that this deck is still able to compete without power. Though the loss of Ancestral Recall definitely hurts in blue-based decks, especially Gay / x has several other potent card drawing.
The same goes for black-based decks. Though one can definitely not go the control route like in now-gone type 2, this color offers both powerful carddraw and massive hand- and mana-disruption.
Take a look at the deck I used to place second in Germany's Dülmen from August 03 this year:

4 Hypnotic Specter
4 Nantuko Shade
3 Phyrexian Negator
3 Withered Wretch
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Dark Ritual
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Yawgmoth's Will
2 Chains of Mephistopheles
3 Null Rod
1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
18 Swamp

SB:
3 Powder Keg
2 Planar Void
2 Masticore
2 Dystopia
2 Diabolic Edict
2 Contagion
2 Chains of Mephistopheles

As you can see I intentionally choosed not to play any power for an optimized synergy of all the cards maindecked, expecially Null Rod. I have to admit that CoM are hard to get nowadays (don't see them much on ebay, do you?), but they were just my metagame choice against the then very popular long.dec and shining and maybe are not neccessary today.

A different approch may be Sligh with a diversified mana curve like Stephen Menandian posted on another website some weeks ago. MD Price of Progress or Blood Moon combined with some creatures in the 2cc range or even 3cc (Ball Lightining anyone?) offer an approach less vulnerable to CotV. Null Rod is still my silver bullet of the choice, especially against Isochron Septer pushing Keeper back to tier 1.

As for speed considerations, Mox Diamond and Chrome Mox are not the optimal choices, but still offer a cheap posiibility to ramp up the mana curve. I won't forget about them when considering new budget solutions.

[g0dzillA]

I'm inclined to agree with the other responses here. What it comes down to is this: even if there are undiscovered viable budget decks out there - ones capable of winning major, fully powered tournaments, mind you - I think it's impossible for such a deck not to be somehow improved by expensive cards. As an example, I can't imagine a powerless budget build in existence that wouldn't be improved by swapping a basic land with a Mox. That's just the nature of Type 1 power, and what makes it so damned expensive.

The summation: even if thoroughly competitive budget builds are created and used to win tournaments, the most serious players will take them and improve them by adding power, in which case they are no longer budget decks - thus reinforcing the stereotype that you need to spend big bucks to be competitive.

The only way I could ever see this changing is if new cards are added to the card pool that make existing power inherently disadvantageous, thus giving a budget build the necessary means to be competitive in a fully powered field. I have a feeling that this was the original intent behind the design of Chalice of the Void. The obvious problem is that it is equally if not more harmful to most budget builds than it is to power. Additionally, it rewards the fully powered player by allowing them to play their power first, then shut down the opposing player's power by dropping it, so it really doesn't address the issue at all.

Another big hindrance to budget deckbuilding, in my mind, is Mana Drain. The budget player is now trapped between being unable to play a low and tight mana curve like Sligh, and is strongly discouraged to raise its curve for fear of falling prey to Mana Drain. Thus the only viable way to play with high cc cards is to use power like Lotus and Workshop to accellerate its plays before the control player has a chance to get two untapped Islands in play.

Basically, the environment is a very harsh one for any type of budget deck to flourish. In order for it to even theoretically  happen with any degree of success, the card pool would have to include some severe deterrent against the establsihed power. This is fundamentally difficult because power doesn't fall into a single card type, casting cost, or color. R&D could print 0cc artifact hate, but then cards like Workshop, Bazaar, Ancestral Recall, Timetwister, etc. would continue to run rampant. They could print even more non-basic hate, but Wasteland sort of has it covered, and it's not enough to keep Workshop.dec or Dragon from kicking ass.

It would be interesting if R&D were to begin designing a series of cards specifically with T1 power hate in mind, but given their admitted complete lack of understanding of the metagame, I find this highly unlikely. Hell, even if they did understand the meta, I doubt they could do it successfully.

[bebe]

I've worked very hard over the past six months trying to perfect a number of budget decks. I have won with Dragon ( yes it has Bazaars) and made the finals with a G/w stompy. All my other attempts were competitive to a point but ultimately lost to broken starts by powered up opponents despite a boatload of hate included in the deck. I agree that most of the builds would have benefited from some P9.
That is the problem. Budget players are taking established arch types and substituting a few cards here and there. This works to an extant but eventually you are just at too much of a disadvantage. Budget decks need to find different solutions to accelerate their decks and meta game for their powered opponents (yes you could call it hate).
I am currently working on a build that uses ESGs, Birds and Elves to accelerate but obviously a simple Fire/Ice can wreck havoc to the mana base. Still it has performed decently against combo and control despite its lack of P9. I simply make my accelerating creatures an asset by using them as a game breaker so that they are times more valuable than the Moxen.
We need to look at approaching budget on different levels and seek to take advantage of well established builds by preparing and including cards in our builds that seriously slow down theirs and make ours even faster. Not any easy task.\n\n

[MethodXL]

Fish does lose its strength without the power, and though it might be inferior then its powered version, budget fish is still a great deck and can see t8 in almost every tournement.  It does not lose too much, and can be adjusted accordingly for the metagame.  The reason we don't see many budget fish in t8, because most tournies allow proxies, so the t8 fish decks always PROXY Ancestrall,TimeW,LOA, and the Sapphire.

[thefram]

I think that we are all taking the general rhetoric of the community to seriously. Smmenen says that "hate decks are bad," everyone says that budget cannot be a consideration in the general meta because it is not as good and is not fast enough to keep up with combo.

Guess what? LONG IS DEAD. There is no turn 1 combo deck in the format. Dragon is turn 2, TPS is turn 2. Hate can hit the table prior to turn 2, even with only budget mana acceleration.

Gorilla Shaman - Power
Blood Moon - Bazaar, Workshop, all of Keeper and Hulk
Null Rod - Power
Naturalize - General goodness
Pernicious Deed - Power, Soldiers, Animate enchantments
Duress - Everything
Cabal Therapy - Everything
Wasteland - NBLH
Price of Progress - NBLH
Stifle - Utility to the max. Dragon, Scepter, Fetchlands......
Pyrostatic Pillar - Control, TPS.
Xantid Swarm - Control
Standstill - Generally good
Force of Will - Not as needed as it was before w/ long, but always awesome.
Cursed Totem - Tog, Welder, Worker.

All of these cards are easy to get and hate nicely on the current meta. I don't need to make the deck for you. I just need people to give up the hopeless attitude. Hate may not win, but we can make powered players take a budget deck into consideration when making they're game plans.

The fact is that with Long.dec dead there is less reason for control to use Chalice of the void main. From the list above you can see that we could make a Utility Beatz deck rather easily and include about 70% of the cards in each build depending on the 3 colors we choose for it (BGU, BGR, RGU, etc.)

So drop the defeatist rhetoric and take up the helm of making budget playable. I dont ask for LAS winning major tourneys, i just want powered players to PHEAR THE NULL ROD+BLOOD MOON!

-thefram

[Dr. Sylvan]

See, but they already do take those cards into account. The Powered decks play many of them as well, particularly the mana denial. But they play them faster due to Moxen, so it's never a budget deck forcing them to adapt, it's the budget deck's bigger, more efficient relative. When the budget player gets them out a turn later (or just as early after expending resources less efficiently), Tier1Uberness.dec is still just as ready or moreso, and you can't back it up with brokenness the way the Powered deck can.

Oh, and Smmenen is correct about hate decks being bad. Every once in a while you can steal victory with hate, but your deck must have an inherently powerful strategy to succeed. If hate actually worked, Enchantress would be awesome; it can hate virtually anything in some capacity and if you metagame is right on a certain day you can hose most non-Storm decks powerfully--hosing control used to be the central attraction of that amazingly cool deck. Problem being that it's (a) not inherently powerful enough with Moxen (at least anymore) and (b) vastly crappier without Moxen. You can't hate them out if that's all you do.

And I'm not saying budget decks can't do okay, I'm saying that there will never be a budget deck which is actually optimal. Even Sligh needs a Ruby and a Lotus.

Edit: Spelling error.\n\n

[jhaggs]

Can a deck be improved upon by adding  600 dollars to it?  Absolutely.  Dr. Sylvan's comments about not being able to use blue because of Ancestral Recall are accurate.  I think my statement about building decks in which expensive cards wouldn't improve then was poorly worded.  

My main point is this:  If the community at large is resigned to the notion that playing anything less than a deck who's cost is in the 4 digits is inherently suboptimal, then we will always keep the door closed to thousands of players.  If the community truely believes that you cannot win a major tournament without expensive cards then we will never have the attention of Wizards that we want because our pool of players will never grow.  

Thefram has it right when he says to drop the "defeatist rhetoric".  I realize that people want to play the very best possible.  I understand that statement and what it stands for.  But if we want this format to grow, if we want this format to become more legitimate to where a lot more people would actually play it, than we have to demonstrate that it is possible to win without spending a fortune.

I wasn't at Gencon this past weekend but from what I heard the turn out for type 1 was incredibly low.  If I am wrong than...my bad.  But if it is true that no one showed up, how does this bode well for us.  Why on earth would Wizards realy care about a format when 6 or 10 people show up to a tournament.  I think its fair to argue that if people think that they can win more people would play.

Look at it this way, what if Carl Winter won the August Gencon without a powered  fish deck.  What type of impoact and message woudl that send to the entire magic community.  What if some of the foprmats top players started playing budget decks and registering top 8 finishes, proving that it could be done.  WOuldn't that get the attention of pretty much everyone?  All I really saying is that recruiting some type 2 players into the format would increase the size and number of our tournament.  This just isn't a bad thing.  But if we are steadfast in the belief that playing anything less than a powered deck is just a hopeless cause in a major tournament than we will never make this format playable to the masses.

[thefram]

Dr. Sylvan, i think you partially missed my point.

I am not asking for viability in the sense of the word you are used to. I am asking for a budget deck that can and will beat powered decks, and cause powered players to prepare for it seriously as a contender, as they did when LAS was more played.

Smmenen is right about POWERED hate decks being pointless. But with budget this is simply not the case. Hate is an essential part of a budget deck because if it cannot compete in speed, it should take away the strengths of the opponent.
The problem is that even budget players take Steve's words to heart and people don't build budget hate decks.

We should at least try.

-thefram

[MethodXL]

This might not make sense but essentially, the budget player has to play better and make better decisions about card choices. The powered player can kind of fall back on his power, drains, bazaars, workshops, etc.  Type 1 is a very forgiving format despite what anyone says (I would know heh).  It is nesseary that more time be spent as a community whole aiding budget deck development.  We really should form some sort of group to start more budget deck threads, or hell if possible (money, bandwith,time, constraints), get a budget deck forum.

[Dr. Sylvan]

@jhaggs: It's not defeatist rhetoric about the format, it's defeatist about the DCI-sanctioned future of the format. The proliferation of proxy tournaments is making this a nonissue save for the annual T1 Championships, which will unfortunately still only be playable/winnable to the people with real Power. WotC has now renewed its devotion to "no reprints", and I'm sure they don't say that lightly, since they don't want to reverse themselves so blatantly. In light of this, we should all continue to hold our proxy tournaments and be happy with the amount of attention that we do receive.

Asking the format's top players to ignore what amounts to the essence of the format, Power cards, is really unrealistic. They play to win and to have fun, which for most of them means using their Power as the metagame demands.

(That said, there is a contingent of them who do ubercool things, though their rogue work usually isn't very budgetized: here I would cite dicemanx's Eureka deck, numerous bebe lists, PTW's work with Fish, Bastian the WW master, K-Run, and of course Razor. I am probably forgetting some key rogues there, but that's who's coming to mind.)

@thefram: Point taken. Hate is important to budget decks. My contention is simply that you can't rest on that alone. I would be excited to see competitive budget decks, too.

[jhaggs]

Quote jhaggs: It's not defeatist rhetoric about the format, it's defeatist about the DCI-sanctioned future of the format.

Dr. Sylvan--I was specifically pointing to you when I used "defeatist rhetoric".  I just meant that on the whole, most just automatically dismiss budget decks as not worth the time.  Again, this mentality is a major turn off to anyone who considers playing this format.

Quote Asking the format's top players to ignore what amounts to the essence of the format, Power cards, is really unrealistic. They play to win and to have fun, which for most of them means using their Power as the metagame demands.

I know that I am asking a lot (that's why I put in bold type "just for a while" in my first post) to how the format's top players work on budget decks.  My logic for this is simple.  If I make a budget deck post here on themanadrain and even top 8 in some tournament is anyone really going to pay attention?  Hypothetically, what if Smmenen wrote a couple of budget articles and then had a top 8 in a tourny or even won a tourny.  That type of visablity would go a long way.  Its like using an athlete or celebrity to promote your product.  I not trying to be a kiss-ass, just practical.  i think its a smart policy to try and sell budget decks as builds that can win.  If we could market this and be sucessful I think many more players would want to play.

Methodxl---I agree with your post.  Play skills and player decisions with a budget deck need to improve alot more.  I think your post speaks volumes as to why many budget decks never have a chance.  Without a margin for error, a budget player must make his play skills a paramount issue.

Here is something else that caught my eye with Maro's article:

Quote In summary, the reason there are not more Type 1 tournaments is that there’s not evidence that the public as a whole wants more Type 1 tournaments. But please, show us data that says otherwise. The more you play sanctioned Type 1 play, the more attention we will pay to it. As far as Pro Tours and Grand Prix, I think the small availability of the cards combined with the hefty price tag will keep us from using Type 1 at international events. That said, there are many other opportunities to increase Type 1 play. The key though is to find ways to bring it to the areas where Type 1 is flourishing.

I think Maro is challenging  us to demonstrate the rising growth of type 1.  He is even suggesting that if many more people participate, Wizards would stand up and take notice.  A sure-fire way to increase the player pool is to advocate budget decks as an avenue to a top 8 finish.  If we could prove that it could be done, then more participaton would happen.

Its like that line in the movie "Feild of Dreams"...If you build it they would play.  Yes, that's corny as hell but I'm not sure that its a false statement.

[bebe]

Quote
My main point is this:  If the community at large is resigned to the notion that playing anything less than a deck who's cost is in the 4 digits is inherently suboptimal, then we will always keep the door closed to thousands of players.  If the community truely believes that you cannot win a major tournament without expensive cards then we will never have the attention of Wizards that we want because our pool of players will never grow.  

It is inherently suboptimal and I am budget's biggest fan. I don't think this will stop new players from entering the format either. Do you know what it costs to keep up with the Standard format? You need to buy a new pool of cards often enough to hurt. New players will happily begin with a budget and slowly acquire the power the want just like many others have done.
As much as I love budget why would I compete at a major tournament - emphasis on major - without the optimal cards? Even if it costs me one match out of six that is enough to drop me down the standings. Locally I will play budget decks. If I decide to compete at a bigger venue, rest assured that I will borrow the power from the store before venturing out.
Do you think that Wizards would pay more attention to us if budget decks won? I think not. Our format does not attract newcomers because it has not got the status of major pro tournaments to back it up. I do not believe fopr a minute that it is solely cost related.

[g0dzillA]

Quote (thefram @ Dec. 15 2003,11:43)The problem is that even budget players take Steve's words to heart and people don't build budget hate decks.

Not to nitpick, but this is the whole point of Suicide Black. It is the paragon of budget hate decks in Type 1. The newer builds splashing red for Blood Moon and Gorilla Shaman even moreso. As far as I can see, Sui variants are so well-honed and have been developed and tested over so many years, that they're about as perfect a budget hate deck you could ask for. Yet they still aren't winning tournaments. Thoughts?

[xrizzo]

I think that Dragon is a great example of a budget deck.

How much does a complete dragon deck cost right now?

$300?  $400?

That is very reasonable for one of the absolute best decks in the format.  I don't follow T2, but I can imagine that after just 1 or 2 blocks, you have spent well over that for a top tier deck!

If the community were to focus on budget decks, then maybe something great could be developed, but T1 is getting to the point where the second biggest factor in your success is properly metagaming.  You can walk into a small-mid sized tourney and win with R/G beats, but it is unlikely.

The problem with asking the community to do this collectively is that people with power are reluctant to design decks which don't use power.  If I spend 2k+ on power, I want to get some good mileage out of it!

I would be all for budget development.  I am currently working on some budget ideas, but admitedly (sp?) they are weaker than their powered counerparts...

[Crater Hellion]

Bebe- I've got something to say about the whole expense of t2 vs. t1 qualm. Before I do, however, I want to remind everyone that I wholeheartedly support type 1 and thorougly enjoy the games it gives me on a weekly basis. That said, type 2 is only substantially more expensive that budget type 1 if you are the kind of serious player who owns the cards to make optimal lists of all the decks in standard. Even if you are that player, chances are you are sponsored, and that's where the huge difference is. From the Vintage player standpoint, it seems to all of us that all type 2 players are extremely serious, sometimes arrogant players who don't care about having fun and only play to win. This just isn't true. Again, I'm not trying to defend the players who do go into games with this frame of mind. As I got closer to the type 2 community, it seemed that most players actually test a little online to choose which deck(s) (usually no more than 2, except in the case of the overly-serious players) they enjoy and think stand a decent chance in the new environment, and they build them.
    This usually occurs whenever a new standalone expansion comes into circulation, meaning every year players will spend upwards of $400 to build new decks right? Not exactly. Although traditionally we have always looked at t2 in that light, that's really not how it's done by the average player. More and more players are doing testing online, and this saves them a myriad of cash. It is more likely that they purchase a box of each expansion (~$200/year) and occasional singles (~$50/year). It is quite plain that t2 players do substantially more trading than t1 players, and this definitely contributes to money-saving.
      Players can, on the other hand, build a quality, budget t1 deck for ~$125. Proxy tournaments definitely contribute to this. However, this deck isn't going to be successful forever. type 1 also fluctuates, possibly even moreso than type 2. Although the cardpool doesn't change every year per se, the viability of a deck can change in less than a year easily.
     A few weeks ago I decided I would start playing type 2 by going to friday night magic, mainly because of my winter schedule. I threw together a few decks on MWS and did most of my testing there. Right now, the only type 2 legal cards I own are either cards I have won as prizes or cards that have been reprinted in t2 legal sets. I busted out some graveyard-based combo decks   , and tested online without owning hardly any of the cards. If I were to go to my local card store tomorrow and try to pick up all the cards I need, it would probably end up with me dropping about $30 cash and $50 in trade value. But since I have a slew of t2 playing buddies, I could most likely ask for anything I needed barring the rares of the utmost expense (chrome mox in this case). So for ~$60 in trade value, I just acquired a relatively expensive deck, but if I were to go to starcity's online store, build my deck, and then buy it, it would have probably cost around $200.
    So although a budget type 1 deck can potentially run you less than $200, you really end up actually paying the whole cost. It's simply because type 2 is a more popular format.. and that needs to change

But don't listen to any of this, because type 2 causes cancer.

[jhaggs]

bebe,

Quote Do you think that Wizards would pay more attention to us if budget decks won? I think not.

I disagree.  I think they would take notice if budget decks wona couple of tournaments.  They would notice because the most of the magic community would notice.  I really think it would be big news and it definitly attract more people to the format.

Quote Do you know what it costs to keep up with the Standard format?

I actually have a pretty good idea. I have a close friend who plays type 2 competatively in my local area.  His is loaded so its not much of a stretch for him but I do know that it is suprisingly more expensive than people realize.  However, Maro covered alot about the cost in his article.  It really does cost a lot to purchase certain t1 cards up front.  You are easily looking at well over a thousand dollars.  That's a burden that 99% of all magic players just cannot over come.

Quote If I decide to compete at a bigger venue, rest assured that I will borrow the power from the store before venturing out.

I totally understand where you are coming from.  It's counter-intuitive to play a deck at a large venue without making at as good as you can.  If you have access to power than why opn earth wouldn't you use it.  What I am suggesting is that the higher profile players, just for a little while used budget decks to show that it can be done.  Hell, you could market the budget decks as a gimmick for a series of articles.  I think the benifits could be potentially very big.

[Crater Hellion]

Quote (xrizzo @ Dec. 15 2003,15:32)I think that Dragon is a great example of a budget deck.

How much does a complete dragon deck cost right now?

$300?  $400?

That is very reasonable for one of the absolute best decks in the format.  I don't follow T2, but I can imagine that after just 1 or 2 blocks, you have spent well over that for a top tier deck!

If the community were to focus on budget decks, then maybe something great could be developed, but T1 is getting to the point where the second biggest factor in your success is properly metagaming.  You can walk into a small-mid sized tourney and win with R/G beats, but it is unlikely.

The problem with asking the community to do this collectively is that people with power are reluctant to design decks which don't use power.  If I spend 2k+ on power, I want to get some good mileage out of it!

I would be all for budget development.  I am currently working on some budget ideas, but admitedly (sp?) they are weaker than their powered counerparts...

err.. I'm not entirely sure where you got those numbers, but Dragon certainly is cheap compared to other t1 decks, and obviously good. If you play in a proxy environment, what I consider to be an optimal build of the deck runs about $200 (if you proxy 3 bazaars, a lotus, and a jet).

[Raziel]

Quote If the type one community can concentrate more resources into building several great budget decks that can consistently perform at a high level, it'll spur more interest into the format.  With more players indoctrinated into the format who truly feel that they can compete will lead to a more visual type 1 presence.

     Budget decks are only half the solution. Wizards is looking at numbers. Every week results flow in from weekly tournaments. They know how many stores are running T2, FNM, Arena etc. The real issue is getting the number of sanctioned Type 1 events up. Even 1.5 events would count towards Vintage. As cool as proxy events can be, they don't show up on the weekly total. If we all really want to make Wizards take notice of T1 we have to get the number of sanctioned events up. Just my 2 cents.

[Falc]

Time is our biggest ally here guys.  There are two factors that will cause Type 1 to continue to grow over the next few years.  

The first big factor is the new Extended rotation policy.  I've seen this happen hundreds of times: a new player starts playing and loves Type 2.  Then when the first block he started with rotates, he suddenly loves Extended.  The same effect will happen with Type 1.  When 6th Ed, Tempest, Urza, and Masques blocks all rotate out of Extended, that will draw more people into Type 1 than ever before.  People want to play with the cards they own.  They want to play with their favorite cards.  If those cards are only legal in Type 1, then they will play Type 1.

The second is that there are less and less copies of Power in circulation.  Every year some cards are destroyed, lost, or locked up by a collector.  It's very possible that within 5 or so years, there won't be any "power" left in the general metagame.  From what I understand, this is already the case in most countries other than the US.  Eventually, "powered decks" will exist almost exclusively on Apprentice.

So the lesson here is to just hang in there and be patient.  Type 1 will never go away.  It's very nature requires it to constantly grow.

- Falc

[jhaggs]

Quote Budget decks are only half the solution. Wizards is looking at numbers. Every week results flow in from weekly tournaments. They know how many stores are running T2, FNM, Arena etc. The real issue is getting the number of sanctioned Type 1 events up. Even 1.5 events would count towards Vintage. As cool as proxy events can be, they don't show up on the weekly total. If we all really want to make Wizards take notice of T1 we have to get the number of sanctioned events up. Just my 2 cents.

Raziel,

   Great point about making the tournaments sanctioned.  I think we could look at this in another light though.  If we can remove the need for proxy tournaments then we won't have to worry about trying to convince players to hold them.  If budget decks could win the need to proxy cards would decrease.  With few and fewer proxy tournaments we would have an increase in sanctioned ones.

   Again, I think increasing the player pool is the key in grabbing the attention of wizards.  Things are off to a great start but I strongly feel that the format needs several high profile top 8 finishes with budget builds.

[Dr. Sylvan]

[irony]

One time, there was this format where even the most expensive deck only had one playset of cards over $40 in it. And you could play your cards forever. And there were a ton of viable, interactive decks in every archetype and *gasp* even in colors other than blue. And it was called...1.5 =/

[/irony]

[jpmeyer]

The problem that I've always seemed to see with budget decks just on a "funness" level is that they usually are leaving out the "essence" of Type 1.  Decks like Fish and Gobbos are more or less Extended-legal decks.  Isn't like the whole point of Type 1 to drop fistfulls of Moxes and whatnot?  Why do you want to play these decks in Type 1 rather than say, Extended which is vastly more supported.  People make a huge deal when there's going to be a tourney that'll get 100 people in it and the top 2 get Moxes.  There's multiple PTQs every weekend that fit that description where you can play your budget deck.\n\n

[jhaggs]

Quote The problem that I've always seemed to see with budget decks just on a "funness" level is that they usually are leaving out the "essence" of Type 1.  Decks like Fish and Gobbos are more or less Extended-legal decks.  Isn't like the whole point of Type 1 to drop fistfulls of Moxes and whatnot?  Why do you want to play these decks in Type 1 rather than say, Extended which is vastly more supported.  People make a huge deal when there's going to be a tourney that'll get 100 people in it and the top 2 get Moxes.  There's multiple PTQs every weekend that fit that description where you can play your budget deck.

I mentioned this in my inital post.  Indeed, maybe the idea of budget decks goes against the spirit of type one.  Maybe type one should really only be fistfulls of moxes.  But if you buy into this then you automatically pigeon hole yourself into believing that type1 is only for a very very small number of fortunate players.  You also remove the format from any type of substantial growth thus removing the format for wizards radar screen.  If the essence of type one revolves around power cards, then the essence of type one truely discriminates the overwhelming majority of its players.  I personally would like to see the format grow in size and in presence.  This is mostly due to my bias against type2  and it is also based on the fact that I feel more players would equal more decks/tech/competition.  If players are resolved in the belief that type one is all about power than the format will always be on the outside looking in.  But if that mindset were to change, if type1 become more accessable, the overall quality/diversity would improve the format greatly.

[Ephraim]

Vintage vs. Standard

It was mentioned that Type II players spend more, on average, than Type I players, to remain competetive in the ever-changing environment. However, I think it is important to realize that a budget Type II deck is incredibly inexpensive. Just take a look at the two budget threads I started in the Type 2 forum (Goblins and Affinity). Both have benefitted from judicious trading, but at heart, they're both really inexpensive decks - more or less $30 apiece. Now, chances are neither one will ever win a tournament, but they both have the ability to give a Tier 1, Type II deck a run for its money. I've seen what passes for a "budget" Type I deck and it is still far out of my price range. Furthermore, if such a deck can't engineer a turn 1 deterrant or a turn 2 win, it's not even going to be a speedbump to a serious, powered Type I deck.  If nothing else, many of the suggested, type I cards are long out of print. If I don't have them, I'm going to have to shop specifically for those cards. If I need a card for my Type II deck, I can buy boosters, which nets me cards I can use in other decks, or I can trade with just about anybody, since others are also buying boosters.

[Mage of Dreams]

@ Jhaggs;
Jacob Orlove locked the thread where I was going to post a reply so I'll make it here...

Quote Also I think a rule that restricted the amount of restricted cards would be ideal at 7.

I'm not sure if you are aware that there is a precedent for this. Many players may not know that WotC has restricted the number of Restricted cards allowed in a deck before.

As a matter of fact there were slight tweaks to the play/draw rule. I ran across the actual info while doing research for my B/R list history (yes its ongoing but damn theres alot of holes in the info.)

These rules were imposed for AndCon '95, there were several changes to the B/R list in both T1 and T1.5 for this event and applied to both T1 and T1.5;

-----------------------------------------------------------
Experimental
Type 1 Super-Restricted
Tournament Format

A new class of cards is added, called Super-Restricted. Only one of each of these cards can be in a deck, and no more than four (4) Super-Restricted cards in total can be in a deck. In addition, at the beginning of a duel, each player must announce if they are using any of the Super-Restricted cards. If one player is, and the other player is not, the player without Super-Restricted cards automatically goes first.
Super-Restricted cards:

Ancestral Recall
Black Lotus
Channel
Chaos Orb
Falling Star
Time Walk
Timetwister
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mox Pearl

The Restricted list has the above cards removed, and the old-style Dual Lands added.

Charles Keith-Stanley              werewolf@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison                  liaison@wizards.com
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Experimental
Type 1.5 Tournament Rules
for AndCon '95
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:28:37 -0700 (PDT)

Type 1.5 rules are the same as Type 1 except as modified below:


The following cards are moved from the restricted to the banned list:
Ali from Cairo (AN)
Ancestral Recall
Black Lotus
Channel
Chaos Orb
Demonic Tutor
Falling Star (LE)
Library of Alexandria (AN)
Maze of Ith (DK)
Mind Twist
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Sol Ring
Timetwister
Time Walk
Wheel of Fortune

The following Ice Age cards are added to the restricted list:
Zuran Orb

The following Ice Age cards had been added to the restricted list, but were removed on Wednesday, 13 September 1995. These are no longer restricted:
Enduring Renewal
Jester's Cap
Jester's Mask
Zur's Weirding

``Summon Legend'' or ``Summon X Legend'' cards are no longer restricted to one per deck, however the rule of no more than four of any card in a deck still applies. Please note that only one of a particular ``Legend'' card may be in play at any time.


Nota Bene

These rules apply only to the tournament to be run at AndCon '95: no determination has yet been made about which (if any) Ice Age cards will be added to the regular Type I and Type II tournament rules.


Charles Keith-Stanley              werewolf@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison                  liaison@wizards.com
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Just some history and perhaps some food for discussion.

Shawn

[blue_negator]

I don't know if it's possible to make budget decks that are better then powered decks.  It might be possible to make budget decks that can beat powered decks via mainboard hate but even then the overall number of good matchups will be higher for powered decks.  It's a simple fact that the best decks usually have the most expensive cards.  Even if the deck started out with cheap cards the value of those "cheap" cards will rise tremendously if the deck starts winning all the time.  Just look at bazaar and workshop, those two cards were hovering in the 25 dollar range for the longest time but when stax and dragon became good they skyrocketed.  Even in type 2 and extended the same thing happens.  Look at how much tinker, grim monolith, city of traitors etc costed after tinker stax became the "new" deck.  Even in type 2 people pay an arm and a leg for exalted angels oblivion stones and chrome moxen

[BrokenDeck]

There is a fundamental problem with making a hate deck.  While it can win in a specific metagame, against a wide field of decks you have to be able to:

Remove graveyards from the game
Destroy artifacts and enchantments
Neutralize non-basic lands
Play spells that do not have a big target painted on them for mana drains
Play a diverse mana curve
Be able to keep a hand full of answers
Have a solid win condition

All of which are pretty hard to do by turn two.  The powered decks have the ability to just win before any of the hate comes down either way, so you will still lose half the time.  

Powered decks have it easier because they try and disrupt their opponent's strategy with cards that use large card advantage, and can only be played in the first couple of turns via expensive (monetarily) cards (mana drain, black lotus, workshop).