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

[Dr. Sylvan]

@Mage of Dreams: Keep up that research and continue to enlighten us. I would never have known of that precedent. Awesome.

Otherwise, jpmeyer hit the nail on the head. This is a format of atrociously broken cards, and the only way to remove that swingy brokenness would be to turn it into something else like 1.5 or 1.x. Type 1 is all about maintaining a precarious balance of retardedly powerful decks with, to paraphrase Smmenen, a 'very condensed set of critical play decisions'. Budget decks do not fit this paradigm. So the alternative to buying Power is running proxy tournaments. I don't know what the problem with this is--most Vintage tournies are Proxy-legal and yet somehow we have magnified the attention for our format many times over. It is clear WotC doesn't ignore us even if we ignore the DCI.

[jhaggs]

Quote Otherwise, jpmeyer hit the nail on the head. This is a format of atrociously broken cards, and the only way to remove that swingy brokenness would be to turn it into something else like 1.5 or 1.x. Type 1 is all about maintaining a precarious balance of retardedly powerful decks with, to paraphrase Smmenen, a 'very condensed set of critical play decisions'. Budget decks do not fit this paradigm. So the alternative to buying Power is running proxy tournaments. I don't know what the problem with this is--most Vintage tournies are Proxy-legal and yet somehow we have magnified the attention for our format many times over. It is clear WotC doesn't ignore us even if we ignore the DCI.

Dr. Slyvan,

  Again, if type 1 were soley based retardly powerful cards then why does the type 1 community starve for the attention of Wizards?  If the overwhelming consensus to budget decks is that they jsut do not fit into the mold of the format then you automatically eliminate the overwhemling majority if players.  If you completely discriminate such a large portion of the magic community, if you totally dismiss the idea that powerless decks just do not belong in the competative level, then type 1 will always be treated as the red-headed step child of the community.  Quite frankly, why on earth would Wizards ever give this community serious consideration if the type 1 community admits that its a format for such a small percentage of players.  

If type 1 wants R&D to consider our comunity when making cards (i.e. no storm mechanics), if type 1 wants more visablity in the forms of international tournaments or a pro tour, if type 1 wants money being spent on promoting the format...then it clearly needs to recruit more players which will create more DCI rated tournaments.

Rosewater writes:

Quote This category while Type 1’s biggest obstacle is also Type 1’s best opportunity. If there is in fact an untapped Vintage crowd out there, let us know. Ask your local tournament organizer to sanction Type 1 and Type 1.5 events. While playing lots of Type 1 on Apprentice means very little to us, an upswing of Type 1 play on the local level will give us the message that there is untapped potential in the format. Talking about how you play is good. Showing us that you play is even better.

He is basically saying. "either put up or shut".  We complain, suggest, plead, discuss, and debate and how this format should be maintained and progressed.  Until we actually give of words some teeth via more players we will never be taken seriously,  Recently we have been given some attention and I hope we can use this time to market that into something positve.

In reviewing the tournament reports in trying to find out more about Gencon, I came across this report about the Fantasyspeldagen tournament.  It was won by an unpowered mono-green land destruction deck (WTF?)  Hopefully this is the start of something, but regardless if this was just lucky (although looking at the field it looked competative), we should promote the hell out of this and market every budget top 8 finish.  I think budget article that showed good finishes instead of articles that only revolve around thousand dollar deck will go a long way in bringing in more players.

You and JP have a very valid point and in fact you just might be right.  But I feel we really have nothing to lose and potential alot to gain if we showed that budget builds can win.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Quote (jhaggs @ Dec. 15 2003,15:10)Again, if type 1 were soley based retardly powerful cards then why does the type 1 community starve for the attention of Wizards?  If the overwhelming consensus to budget decks is that they jsut do not fit into the mold of the format then you automatically eliminate the overwhemling majority if players.  If you completely discriminate such a large portion of the magic community, if you totally dismiss the idea that powerless decks just do not belong in the competative level, then type 1 will always be treated as the red-headed step child of the community.  Quite frankly, why on earth would Wizards ever give this community serious consideration if the type 1 community admits that its a format for such a small percentage of players.

You are straw-manning my argument. I am not suggesting our format be exclusionary at all; I simply state that proxies are the viable solution to the givens:

(1) Decks with Power are strictly superior.
(2) There isn't enough Power to maintain a reasonable price for most players.
(3) Wizards of the Coast will not in the foreseeable future reprint any of the cards still on the Reserved List

If there is some way in which proxies are exclusionary, please correct me. The only party left out is the DCI.

[jhaggs]

I don't mean to straw-man your argument.   The thing that I was driving at is that if you suggest to players that advocate viable budge builds (like jp did with his post) to go play another format, what you are essentially doing is closing the door on all players that don't have the few thousands dollars to spend on necessary cards.  Without that huge number of players Type 1 will always be considered a tier 3 format...which it shouldn't be.  Again, I'm not trying to say that your opinion is wrong, but I think that now that we have the ear of Wizards and that we are more visable, we can use this opportunity to draw a bigger crowd to our game.

As for the proxies, here is what MaRo wrote, which i'm sure you have already read:

Quote Fourth, some players argue that the expense issue can be solved by allowing proxies. My answer to that is simple: Magic exists for two reasons. One, it’s a great game (my personal all-time favorite) and R&D, as a bunch of hardcore gamers, feels an obligation to keep it alive. Two, it’s a revenue source for Wizards of the Coast and its parent company Hasbro. If the second doesn’t happen, neither will the first.

If we condone proxies, we start down a road that we don't want to travel. We increase confusion. We affect the secondary market (which we do care about, but that’s a topic for another column). But most importantly, it would directly lead to players buying fewer cards. That is bad for us and, long term, bad for you. The less money we make, the less we have to allocate to things like Organized Play and MagicTheGathering.com. I like to stress the “game” in game company, but the “company” part is also very important.

I think I summed up this point well, but let me stress that proxies is another dead end for Type I crusaders. To be blunt yet again, it just ain’t going to happen. (And for those English majors that cringe when I use the word “ain’t”? Bwah ha ha ha.)

In summary, both reprinting Type 1 cards and allowing proxies fly in the face of Wizards’ other responsibilities. I am trying today to find areas for discussion. And elsewhere, I will present opportunities to do so. But not here. Neither reprinting nor proxies are open for debate.

Since proxy tournaments will never be given any merit whatsoever, I'm jsut not sure this is the solution we are looking for.

[bebe]

No, proxies will not help our cause at all. We need tournaments that are sanctioned and we need larger turnouts. I'm not saying budget is dead, BTW. I feel like
I am one of budget's champions. I play budget as often
as I play powered decks. I am realistic though. Type 1
thrives on the power nine.  

What is not mentioned is that there are a number of
excellent cards we do have access to. I
am now using ESGs in almost all my combo budget builds
and Rituals provide grerat acceleration.
Restricted Tutors are some good, I hear, as is
Yawg's Will and Balance. There are resources.

As to why we do not hype a deck that is budget and wins, I cannot answer. I've won tournaments with budget decks
and frankly no one really seems to care. We can post wins
in our tournament section but the message does not get
out to newcomers to the format. Steve, Oscar and others would need to write some articles on those budget decks that succeed in large tournaments and that has not happened.  
I wrote an article for the Ferrett a month ago and it was rejected - my first rejection - that featured rogue budget decks. We need weight behind us and until some of the big guns come on line we will not see budget advertised.

[MuzzonoAmi]

As an ardent supporter of budget Decks for the format, I think that Budget has it's place in Type 1. I don't see the format as being about dropping a, as JP put it, 'fistful of Moxen', but rather about being able to enjoy Magic as a developing  entity. With Type 2, Block, and more and more with 1.x, we are loosing the game's infancy. When 1.x rotates in 2 years, the mass-supported play formats will loose what I  and many others consider the age when the game was at it's best: Mirage Black (which has already rotated out) through Urza Block. The rules were optimal during that period, the flavor of the game was great, the story hadn't become overbearing, and the game was balanced but powerful. I honestly tried to play a bit of Type 2 after Tempest Block rotated out. Those games lacked so much of what the age before had been. And now 1.x is loosing that portion of the game's history. As the format where we can watch the gme develop, I feel Type 1 needs to be open to everyone who wants to play.

But aside from that, I play this format over any other because it challenges me more than any other format. As a deckbuilder, and one with a proclivity to 'go rogue', Type 1 offers nigh-limitless possiblities and challenges for me to overcome. Sure, I think I could do fairly well if I played Type 2, Block, or 1.x. I feel I could probably T8 at a PTQ if I focused on the format. But building decks for those formats almost feels like Netdecking. Once I got a Mirrodin spoiler in my hands, I had, in a little under 2 days, built an Affinity deck all my own. I've played in on Apprentice a bit and I can tell you it's competitive. But it's at most 8 cards off from the more controllling established Affinity build, and that doesn't excite me at all. I want to play a format where I can take a card, be it well known or highly obscure, and build a deck around it. The same is true of a concepts. I'm currently tuning a budget Monoblack control deck, something that has pretty much been written off as unviable or Teir 2 at best ever since GAT emerged. It has its weaknesses, but it's far from unviable. But I digress...

We need to put forth an ernest and dedicated effort to making budget decks viable, not just budget derivatives of established decks.

EDIT: Bebe posted while I was writing this. I'd like to get a group together to start working on various rogue/budget ideas. We need more than one mind working on this. PM me if you're interested. (And there's a few of you I'd REALLY appreciate hearing from)\n\n

[jhaggs]

bebe and Muzzono Ami,

  

Quote As to why we do not hype a deck that is budget and wins, I cannot answer. I've won tournaments with budget decks
and frankly no one really seems to care. We can post wins
in our tournament section but the message does not get
out to newcomers to the format. Steve, Oscar and others would need to write some articles on those budget decks that succeed in large tournaments and that has not happened.  
I wrote an article for the Ferrett a month ago and it was rejected - my first rejection - that featured rogue budget decks. We need weight behind us and until some of the big guns come on line we will not see budget advertised.

Quote We need to put forth an ernest and dedicated effort to making budget decks viable, not just budget derivatives of established decks.

Thanks for your posts.  I think we are all pretty much on the same page.  Its unfortunate that a serious look into budget decks haven't been prevelant.  Probably this is because top players want to play top builds and they are constantly striving to build that elusive "current greatest deck".  Personally I don't blame them espically when I do the same thing.  I have more experience with broken decks than with budget decks.  But I do think that  it is clear that we have communication with wizards and that they have asked us to demonstrate this hidden type 1 scene, we really should try to make this format more playable to the larger audience.  Its jsut common sense to promote budget builds that can win in order to garner more resources from wizards in the form of bigger profile tournaments.

I will say that if this idea is viable it needs to be discussed by the more viable and vocal leaders of the format.  Lets face it, a thread started by myself will never get the attention of a thread in the vintage forum written by others.  If this is a good idea it should be championed by other people in order to give it the legs it needs.  I'm not trying to pass the buck, but I am realistic.  Hopefully others feel the same and will start to at least acknowledge the fact that budget decks play a critical role in maintaining the student bosy of the format.

[Ephraim]

I agree that the creation of truly budget decks would be a great boon for the Type I environment. However, I am also of the opinion that it really isn't possible. Suppose you build a really good budget deck. It's capable of going toe-to-toe with any of the decks in the environment and has interesting sideboard matchups. If the deck is that good, then adding power to it will only make it better. Suddenly, the effort to create a good budget deck has simply led to the creation of the next big thing. The existence of the Moxen almost makes a Tier I budget deck impossible. The unpowered deck will simply be overshadowed by the powered version. I think that the only way this can be avoided is if such a deck is created, but the mirror-match is so difficult to predict that the unpowered version would still stand a chance against the powered version.

[mouth]

Quote We need to put forth an ernest and dedicated effort to making budget decks viable, not just budget derivatives of established decks.

I'll just cut to the heart of it. Can a budget deck actually be better than an equivalent yet more expensive build?

That refers to the two main types of Vintage Budget; hate decks and cheaper derivations of an older sibling.

So, is there a third type of viable budget in Type 1?

[EDIT]: Ephraim got it...

[jhaggs]

Quote If the deck is that good, then adding power to it will only make it better.

Ephraim,

  I will be the first to concede that dumping serious money into any deck will always make it better.  But I think you missed the point of the thread.  Of course budget decks can be improved upon.  But it is important to establish the fact that a budget build can run with the big dogs.  If it can be shown that certain decks can succeed in big tournaments, it would go a long way in turning more players on to type 1.  Where they once felt that the format was only for the priviledged or wealthy can now be played competatively for a reasonable price by everyone.

[jazzy kat]

I just want to say one thing. The power nine for the most part were restricted because they broke fundamental rules of the game.

If I put out two land on one turn, without fast bond or exploration on the table you would say I was cheating, well moxes let you do just that. As to the lotus...lets not go there.

As far a ancestral goes. You are allowed to draw one card per turn. Elementary card advantage tells us that the more cards we draw, the smoother our mana base, the more answers and the more threats we have. This card effectively gives you two extra turns of cards for free.

Time walk, normally we alternate turns. Timewalk basically says skip your turn.

Timetwister is powerful like other draw sevens, but I think it is expensive because it is blue and went in so many combo decks over the years.

OK, now we know that cheating helps you win if you don't get caught right. Now these cards are like legal cheating. There are very few decks that wouldn't see a performance boost by being able to legally cheat

[jhaggs]

Quote I just want to say one thing. The power nine for the most part were restricted because they broke fundamental rules of the game.

If I put out two land on one turn, without fast bond or exploration on the table you would say I was cheating, well moxes let you do just that. As to the lotus...lets not go there.

As far a ancestral goes. You are allowed to draw one card per turn. Elementary card advantage tells us that the more cards we draw, the smoother our mana base, the more answers and the more threats we have. This card effectively gives you two extra turns of cards for free.

Time walk, normally we alternate turns. Timewalk basically says skip your turn.

Timetwister is powerful like other draw sevens, but I think it is expensive because it is blue and went in so many combo decks over the years.

OK, now we know that cheating helps you win if you don't get caught right. Now these cards are like legal cheating. There are very few decks that wouldn't see a performance boost by being able to legally cheat

First of all, I think that there is a great divide between cheating and "broken".  Type 1 is full of broken cards and broken plays would I certainly would not refer to that as cheating.  Brokenness is what type 1 is predominatly about, but calling it cheating takes away from the deck and the player.

Secondly, I think we have already addressed the fact pretty much every deck can be improved by power cards.  If this is the case then the natural progression would lead to the manifestation of a much better type 1 build that is fully powered.  But this goes beyond the scope of what I am trying to prepose.  The basic argument that I'm trying to make is that the format needs sucessful budget decks in order to bring in more players which will hopefully lead to more tournaments (i.e. more attention).

[Ephraim]

@ jhaggs:

I re-emphasized the point because I suspect, and I could be wrong, that if an unpowered version of a deck is good enough to compete against powered versions of other decks, then the powered version of said budget deck would make the budget deck uncompetetive again, by comparison. If the budget deck can't beat the powered version of itself, it still won't fulfill the need for a budget deck. It stinks like a logical contradiction to suppose that any already-competetive, unpowered deck could stand a good chance against a powered version of itself.

[Goblin Headbanger]

No budget deck is ever going to be "optimal."  So what?  How many "optimal" decklists do you see at your average tournament?  The ones you do see are probably played by netdeckers who haven't put in the time and testing to play the deck particularly competently.  That's why Long.dec did not conquer the world.  Budget decks can, and do, make strong showings at local tournaments.  I see it all the time.

Bottom line: budget players CAN compete in Type I.  Maybe they aren't likely to win GenCon, but again, so what?  Magic is just like any other arms race, you do have to spend to win in the bigtime.  If that's your goal, you need to either power up or metagame your butt off.  If Keeper and Scepter decks really are where people are going, then an unpowered Sui deck sounds pretty good (Null Rod 4L).

If half the energy that goes into this "fix the format" stuff was properly focused on fixing decks and developing playskill, budget decks would make a much better showing.

[jhaggs]

Ephraim,

Quote It stinks like a logical contradiction to suppose that any already-competetive, unpowered deck could stand a good chance against a powered version of itself.

Ahhh, now I see what you were getting at.  Very interesting point indeed.  I'm not sure this negates the need to see budget decks do well, because I still feel the format needs it in order to see growth, but you do bring up a valid point.  My inital counter argument would be to point out that a powered version of a budget deck might not necessarily be better (i.e. something that ran extreme hate like 4 mull rods and 4 chalices).  But these examples are remote at best.  I'll have to think a little more about your point but again I'll stress the point that budget decks should be promoted.

In another thread Toad writes:

Quote No I don't. Why would you want to restrict the number of restricted cards in a deck ? To make budget viable again ? Well, Type One has never been made to be a budget format. If you want to play with a restricted number of broken cards, go play T1.5. If you want to play budget because you can't afford to buy a Workshop, go play T2. There is no shame in that. There is really no point in restricting the number of brokeness in a deck.

It maybe unfair to quote someone in a different thread but considering the context I felt it was appropriate.  This is another issue that I would like to address.  Obvisously I disagree with Toad from the standpoint that if you make a statement like this what you are also conceding to is that type 1 was never made to have large type 2-like tournaments, was never made to have a pro tour, was never made to be a format in which the masses could play, was never made to incorporate new players, was never made to be a serious consideration for the people that made the game, and many others.  My point in saying this is not to say that Toad is necessarily wrong but that if we choose to exclude 99% of the people that play magic how can we expect the format to grow.  Let's face it, there are only certain areas in the world that play type 1.  The Socal Gencon drew an embarrasingly low number of participatant.  Wouldn't it be better to include more and more competition?  Maybe not?  Maybe its better that we keep the format small like it is.  But keep in mind, we do pay a price for playing in the smallest format.

[jazzy kat]

@jhaggs you make a good point about broken and cheating, although in my mind a broken card lets you do something akin to cheating within the rules. Think about yawg win, any way this is just semantics.

The only way I see budget t8ing in something big is a very good player, who practices a hell of a lot, metagamed a deck properly, sideboarded right and got a little lucky. To be honest though playing a unpowered deck in a sea of power is akin to a sprinter in a race with a broken big toe. If they are head and shoulders better and determined to win then they might, but if they meet a likewise minded healthy runner then I would put money on the healthy runner.

My posts are by no means saying that budget players suck, in fact some are better than fully powered players. The point is, is that budget has to use the advantages of the powered players against them to get on a somewhat even footing. How that is done I don't know other than null rod
 

[bebe]

It is done by using

hosers ...
Null Rod
CotV
Gorilla Shaman
Blood Moon
Strip effects
etc.

mana accelerators ...
dark rit
ancient tomb
esg
bop
chrome mox
etc.

free counters ...
misd
daze
fow

card advantage ...
tutors
cantrips
yawg's will
standstill
balance
etc.

My current aggro deck employs
5 strip effects
ankh of mishras
four blood moon and three stifles out the side
lots of cheap burn

Would the deck benefit from two moxen, Ancestral and  Time Walk - absolutely. But those are not a high percentage of the deck's content - in fact theyb are only four cards and my Standstill's go along way in balancing the power disparity.

Bear in mind the deck is wholly synergistic and was predicated to perform well without abusing the power cards even if they would be welcome.

[Ric_Flair]

Jhaggs:  I weigh in on this issue only because I think that what you are saying is not only the wrong approach to the problem but it is incredibly short sighted.

Here is the premise I am operating under:  Vintage is a game and the ONLY thing that matters in terms of the game itself is WINNING.  You may have fun with the game or like to play it, but these are things you bring to the game, they are your attitudes and approaches, they have nothing to do with the game itself.  Games are about WINNING and WINNING any way you can without cheating.  

With this as a premise it is easy to see why top tier budget decks are: a) not possible; b) why it is not "discriminatory"; and c) why this will never change.  

Top Tier Budget Decks are Impossible

This has been explained so many time and in so many ways that it is silly for me to go into again in depth, but here is the short version.  ANY deck can be improved with the addition of on color moxen.  Go make your experimental budget deck, use tons and tons of resources, and thousands of people.  Do it.  I mean it, really.  Then give me the deck, I will slide in the appropriate power, and viola the deck is better than it was before.  ANY BUDGET DECK WILL BE IMPROVED WITH THE ADDITION OF APPROPRIATE POWER.  

Here is why.  Magic is a game of limited resources.  You essential have four resources: cards, time, mana, and life.  There are some variations on those themes but basically that is what the game boils down to.  When you have so few resources to balance off each other and trade for it is difficult to find "hidden" exceptions to the rules.  Moxen are the most efficient sources of permanent colored mana.  They are essentially land that have no land drawbacks.  Thus, they reduce the resource of mana to its absolute least expensive point.  Any lower and the game would cease to function in the same way.  Thus Moxen are the VERY BEST permanent mana possible.  So when they are available there is no reason NOT to play them.  The same thing can be said for Ancestral, Time Walk, and Library.  They all, in some way or another represent the absolute minimum a given resource can cost.  With so little room to "wiggle" around the formula is all but set in stone.  In a game with vastly more resources, like for example Major League Baseball, money does not necessarily equate to success.  Success, the efficient utilization of resources in a winning effort, is much more variable.  This is why low budget teams like the A's can repeatedly win.  In Magic where the resources are more confined and the absolute most efficient version of each resource has been printed (or as efficient as will ever be printed) there is less play.  So gimme a budget deck, I'll brainlessly add power, and it will be better.  That is a fact.

The Need for Power is NOT Discriminatory

People throw this word around a lot.  In fact it has all but lost its primary, legal meaning.  Discriminatory now basically means, "I am not winning/succeeding/whatever and I think its unfair."  That is NOT what the law recognizes as discrimination.  Discrimination is unfair treatment of individiual for unacceptable reasons UNDER the circumstances.  It is not discrimination, for instance to bar black people from undercover jobs in the FBI, when those jobs are going undercover in the KKK.  This is "discrimination" in the true sense of the word.  

Similarly in a game WINNING is all that matters.  Thus so long as you don't cheat anything you do to win is fine.  If that includes buying expensive cards, so be it.  That is what is fair under the circumstances, i.e. that is what is fair UNDER THE RULES OF THE GAME.  

As such, it is not "discrimination" to have a format in Magic in which expensive power cards are required.  You may not be able to play because of your finances, but you probably can't play NBA basketball either.  It is a condition of the game and thus not discriminatory.

Why this will never change

Given the nature of Type 1 and the rules of the format AND the explanation of minimal cost resources above this condition will NEVER change.  If you can prompt a change in the rules (a restriction of restricted cards for example) or a change in the availability of the cards via proxies or reprints then the expensive nature will change.  Otherwise the status quo will remain.\n\n

[jhaggs]

bebe,

   I have been running a budget lanstill deck (as well as a fully powered one .  Clearly the powered version is great but the budget version is still very very good.  We all know that Landstill hates permanents.  This decreases the value of running moxes even in the powered version.  The powered version runs LOA, Recall, and Time walk.  However, it doesn't run brainstorm.  The budget version is able to incorporate cheap draw to make up for its lack of power.  Also, the powered verison runs Drains.  Fortunatly, Landstill doesn't have a lot of drain targets to begin with.  Clearly drain is preferred but the loss of drain isn't as harsh to Landstill as say it would be to keeper.

For a reference here is a deck by deck comparison:

Shockwave's Landstill (post Mirroden)

// Mana Sources
      4 Island
      4 Volcanic Island
      4 Faerie Conclave
      4 Wasteland
      4 Mishra's Factory
      1 Wooded Foothills
      1 Flooded Strand
      1 Mountain
      1 Strip Mine
      1 Library of Alexandria
      1 Black Lotus
      1 Mox Sapphire
      1 Lotus Petal

// Card Drawing and Utility
       4 Standstill
       1 Ancestral Recall
       1 Time Walk

// Removal
       4 Lightning Bolt
       4 Fire/Ice
       4 Nevinyrral's Disk

// Permission
       4 Mana Drain
       4 Force of Will
       3 Misdirection
       3 Stifle

A budget Version:

// Mana Sources
      5 Island
      4 Volcanic Island
      4 Faerie Conclave
      4 Wasteland
      4 Mishra's Factory
      1 Wooded Foothills
      1 Flooded Strand
      1 Mountain
      1 Strip Mine
      1 Lotus Petal

// Card Drawing and Utility
       4 Standstill
       4 brainstorm

// Removal
       4 Lightning Bolt
       4 Fire/Ice
       4 Nevinyrral's Disk

// Permission
       4 Counterspell
       4 Force of Will
       3 Misdirection
       3 Stifle

This is an example of an existing archtype that can be made to fit as a budget build that can incorporate other cards to make up for the lack of power.  Because brainstorm isn't MD in the powered version, adding it the the budget version can make up for some lost tempo by digging through the deck AND protecting key cards against duress, something that the powered version cannot do.  Landstill maybe the only exception where the budget verison isn't jsut a bastard child of the powered version (IMO).  Defintily the way to go is to create a brand new budget deck.  But, I thought i would just point this unique build out.

[bebe]

@ric_flair
We have all agreed that power enhances any deck. Really this is not the issue. We are looking to create budget decks that can succeeed DESPITE their lack of power and this is certainly possible. Even a simple R/G beats deck will use two moxen. But replacing them with a Chrome Mox or ESG will not appreciably slow the deck up on an average draw as a considerable number of cards are 1cc. And please don't tewll me that R/G beats does not win tournaments - it does. Now this is one of many examples of doable decks i could run on a budget.
@jhaggs
My Aggro/Standstill is a completely different creature from your deck. It was not based on a current Type 1 deck and that is probably its greatest strength. That said this is perhaps not the thread to post lists. I know Vegeta and MuzzoAmi are working on getting a team together to test new and effective budget decks. PMing them would be tech for those interested in pursuing this in a meaningful way.  
I guess we need a name too ...
\n\n

[jhaggs]

Ric,

Quote This has been explained so many time and in so many ways that it is silly for me to go into again in depth, but here is the short version.  ANY deck can be improved with the addition of on color moxen.  Go make your experimental budget deck, use tons and tons of resources, and thousands of people.  Do it.  I mean it, really.  Then give me the deck, I will slide in the appropriate power, and viola the deck is better than it was before.  ANY BUDGET DECK WILL BE IMPROVED WITH THE ADDITION OF APPROPRIATE POWER.  

This point has been brought numerous time already in the thread.  I have agreed with this point in several posts.  Yes, any deck is improved with power.  I'm not debating this.  But that isn't the foceus of what I was driving at.

EDIT: Bebe was in before me.

Quote Similarly in a game WINNING is all that matters.  Thus so long as you don't cheat anything you do to win is fine.  If that includes buying expensive cards, so be it.  That is what is fair under the circumstances, i.e. that is what is fair UNDER THE RULES OF THE GAME.  

This is at the heart of the thread.  We definitly both agree on this point but from two different perspectives.  Numerous people here at tmd write to wizards, talk about the DCI, complain and compliment about where the game is going.  However, as MaRo eluded to in this article is that the format needs to "show wizards the money".  Type 1 is a small format.  Its a small format because many people feel that they jsut cannot compete without power.  Whether this is true or not if the vast majority of players beleive this it as so, it will have a discriminatory "effect".  Sure the format itself isn't dicriminating (a good point that you made) but people will automatically void themselves from the format because it is a lost cause. They jsut won't even consider it. Type 1 has a low numebr of tournaments and a low percentage of wizards attention.  Hell type 1 week comes at a time where probably most of the writing staff is headed for vacation.  Why would wizards ever give a hoot about our complaints or queries over a long period of time?  Compared to other formats, we hardly produce any revenue for them and we are such a small percentage of the community.

Taking this back to your winning quote, this is exactly why we need to promote budget decks that can win.  Are they top teir type 1.  No.  But if some can be piloted consistantely into the top 8 it'll definitly drive more people into the format.  I not saying that we need to make budget decks dominate, we just should make them capable of winning more than they are.

Ask yourself this question:  Would type 1 be a better format with thousands of new players?  Would type 1 be a better format if Wizards had the format in mind when they produced cards (i.e. no storm mechanics)?  Would type 1 be a better format with more competition?  If the answers to these are yes, then how would you go about recruiting more players.  Keep in mind, that in a format where more and more players are involved, more people would be more inclined to start buying cards they wouldn't normally buy.

I think by marketing and promoting budget builds would have a positive effec ton the format.  Again, I'm not trying to say that budget builds are on they same level, but if they can be shown to win or to top 8 it may start a ground swell of new attention that our format lacks.

[cssamerican]

jhaggs: The mana off Mana Drain is big in Landstill in my opinion because it can accelerate Disks and activate man-lands. It is a tempo boost for sure. Is the deck unplayable without the Drains? No, but you will lose a fair share of games simply because you do not have them. The effect might not be as big as in Keeper, but it is still there.

I beleive bebe is taking the right approach. The budget player needs to use cards that negate advantages of powered players. If you can find the right cards that make a good budget deck, chances are it will not bennifit much from power because it is geared to hurt power. LAS was a good example of this. The key is to find cards that basically hate power that are good on there own. This would be real easy if Null Rod,  Back to Basics and Bloodmoon were a 2/1 creatures, but they are not and this is what make making good budget decks hard. It is hard to throw down threats and hate, but that is what it will take to make a budget deck successfull.

[jpmeyer]

That's a good point. Just remember that threats need to be threats.  A Jackal Pup isn't a threat.  A Juggernaut is closer to a threat.  And a Dreadnaught is a real threat.

[jhaggs]

cssamerican,

  I agree with both your points.  No drain in landstill is a definite drawback.  I just used landstill as an example of existing deck that could be budgeted where losing power could be exchanged for other advantagous not currently in the powered MD(brainstorm) instead of just exchanged for hate (i.e. chalice).  No non powered keeper or non powered WMUD loses a tremendous amount that really can't be made up.  But this may not be the case for Landstill.

Either way, I think bebe is correct in trying to establish something completely outside the scope of an existing deck.  PLus its a hell of a grea challenge to creat one.