That will make the situation for the moderators here like hell, because ALL users will complain! The reason for that will be the great confusion what should be considered "budget" and what "non-budget", when tournament decks are discussed.
While I am in favor of a budget forum, I also think there needs to be 1) specific guidelines to define what is and is not budget (perhaps something along the lines of Heirloom?), and 2) a differentiation between "competitive budget" and "casual budget".
Anyways, looking forward to it if it comes to pass
I would also appreciate a sort of rule saying you must post how much the deck costs, or even prices per card, so you can see the $-value changes as people make suggestions and modifications. This would limit someone from making overpriced suggestions to some extent.
So, when you post your improvement suggestions, you also include current prices for each card, as well as the price for x4, and the price for all the new cards together, minus the price of the old cards, for the upgrade price, which you then add-on to the old price, for the new price for the deck.
so...
(((price per card) X 4) X number of new cards) - (((price per card) X 4) X number of old cards) + price of deck (old) = price of deck (new)
unless you only add in 1x, 2x, or 3x of a card, in which case you must make adjustments on the fly. or when you add-in 25x of relentless rats, for example, or subtract from...
[a price calculator form that also posts to the forum would be nice, like a deck modification forum posting app]
--------
ok, seriously:
a 'pauper' forum, cause there is a pauper format
a commons only forum, subdivided into standard, extended, block, etc.
a common + uncommon forum
a common + uncommon + rare forum (budget)
adding sub-forums to Standard, Extended, etc. forums would be best... but limiting it to just one 'budget' forum would be unproductive. We need/desire more categories. For example, a Standard-Uncommons Only forum would be delightful. But we also want a Standard-50/50 Commons/Uncommons forum, and so on...
it is rediculous, of course, so I guess ifyou start with a 'budget' forum, outside and separate from all the rest, then you can see where the threads are going and make sub-forums from there.
[possibly sub-forums with price ranges? $0-5, $5-$10, $10-15, etc.]
I also vote yes on the Budget sub-forum, for all the previously stated reasons.
I think that in this case, budget is more of a frame of mind than a price-threshold. I mean, if someone happens to have a play set of expensive card X, and uses them in his/her budget deck, but wants to maintain the rest of the deck relatively cheap, they may have passed the "price threshold" while legitimately seeking budget advice. I mean, people draft. Occasionally, they open something worth some money. Should they not be allowed to use it in a budget deck because SCG or whoever else values it as $X? After all, the budget is ultimately decided by the one paying for the cards.
In my opinion, the correct way to run this is to create a forum where no cards are off limits to deck builders, but anyone posting critiques can't simply go "Remove your 4 X for 4 of SUPER-BALLS-TO-WALLS-EXPENSIVE-Y." I think that if this sub-forum was created, there should be a requirement so that posts (or at least the original post) contains a set budget value for how much the player is willing to spend to update their deck. I mean, this value can change as the thread goes on. But it makes it pretty clear that you shouldn't recommend Goblin Guide to the goblin player with a $15.00 budget.
I really think that this is key. Each player's budget is going to differ, sometimes, drastically, from the next. The important point is what the builder is willing to pay. As long as each post has a line somewhere saying "I have X amount to spend", or "I don't mind buying something like X, but I can't afford Jace the Mind Sculptor", then we're fine, while it sets the precedence for what cards to suggest.
I also suggest that Yaku's budget guide be moved to and stickied in this new forum. It's extremely useful and all budget players should read it.
Budget doesn't have anything to do with the cost of a card. Budget here means, "Are any of your deck decisions based on your ability to get a card?" If your deck looks like this:
4 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4 Vengevine
4 Koth of the Hammer
4 Elspeth Tirel
4 Venser, the Sojourner
3 Mana Leak
37 whatever
But, if you run 3 Mana Leaks because you can't get a 4th, that makes this deck "budget." Obviously my example is stupid but the point is still there. That is how you know a deck is budget: The person makes less than optimal decisions because of access to cards.
I'm in favour of it. There's "budget" in the sense of "I don't want to buy more than $5 in singles" which is one thing, and "budget" in the sense of "I don't want to buy Jaces." Specifically, to address this concern:
Not everyone's budget is the same thus there will be complications in discussing how to get certain cards. Some people think 15$ for a card is an ok budget, while others think using 2 bulk rares in a deck is pushing it.
As I understand the existing "no budget" rules, allowing cost to affect card choice in any fashion isn't allowed, so the simplest way to have a budget forum would be to have the OP post whatever budget they have in mind. I imagine most budget discussion would involve what to change for a planeswalker-less deck, anyway.
Budget doesn't have anything to do with the cost of a card. Budget here means, "Are any of your deck decisions based on your ability to get a card?" If your deck looks like this:
4 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4 Vengevine
4 Koth of the Hammer
4 Elspeth Tirel
4 Venser, the Sojourner
3 Mana Leak
37 whatever
But, if you run 3 Mana Leaks because you can't get a 4th, that makes this deck "budget." Obviously my example is stupid but the point is still there. That is how you know a deck is budget: The person makes less than optimal decisions because of access to cards.
I can't disagree with this, but I think you are approaching it the wrong way.
While not acquiring that 4th Mana Leak may make deck "budget", you have to consider why the fourth Mana Leak is not acquirable. Some times, it's because it's just not physically possible to get it because it no longer exists or is not available (as will eventually be the case with Eternal formats). Most of the time, however, it's simply not worth the investment. What defines budget in any player's eyes is that the player is willing to invest X quantity or less into Y value..
Relegating "budget" to card availability is flawed because technically, I have every card in the world accessible to me. So does everyone else. They're all a few clicks away on an internet retailer. For instance, I could easily take out a loan to pay for them. However, I'm not willing to spend the rest of my life working to pay off my Black Lotus loan. Why? Because I don't think they are worth the investment. Why didn't I play Superfriends? Because I wasn't willing to put in the time to pay for a $900 deck. I could have. But I didn't. The availability is there. The investment value isn't.
"Budget" is in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants a Goblin deck by tonight so they can have fun at an FNM, giving commentary such as "Study your meta, and if a lot of Valakut is being played, add in Tec Edges" is completely worthless because they aren'tgoing to invest any time into studying the meta. Giving the suggestion that "if Siege-Gang hasn't been performing well, try Eldrazi Monument" to the player who won't put in the effort to test his deck is equally as worthless because he can't tell whether Siege-Gang has been sub-par. Just like the suggestion of Goblin Guides to the $15.00 Goblin player is pointless because he cannot afford them. None of them are willing to invest enough X, and consequently, the advice must be tailored to that.
Availability is one thing. Worthwhile investments are another.
Couldn't agree more. When I played more competitively it was really annoying when you would have "help me with this deck build" in a competitive forum section. You click in to help them for example a UW control deck and they have no Jace TMS, BSA, Elspeth, Gideons, and its all Jank.
Then they are just flamed and reported with no help for their budget decks. Happens way too often. You want to help them, but it's just not the proper place to put those decks and a budget forum would definitely put those decks in the right spot.
Rather than being called a budget forum, what about calling it "powered down" - where the decks don't have 4 x all of the good cards - a lot of the time you will find someone who may have 2 x the top cards and then fill in the blanks with "almost as good" cards.
The other alternative would be a FNM level forum - almost the same idea but not tagged budget?
I really think that this is key. Each player's budget is going to differ, sometimes, drastically, from the next. The important point is what the builder is willing to pay. As long as each post has a line somewhere saying "I have X amount to spend", or "I don't mind buying something like X, but I can't afford Jace the Mind Sculptor", then we're fine, while it sets the precedence for what cards to suggest.
Best definition thus far - give the man a chocolate fish!
I'd say that any threads in the Budget forum (it really should exist) should state their not just their monetary budget, but also what high-cost cards (that could fit the deck) the OP already has.
Exactly correct. Lots of times when I've viewed Yaku's guide, people with post budget U/W control decks, which often lack JTMS, BSA, Elspeth, but occasionally have 1 Gideon, and often have enough copies of Sun Titan and Jace Beleren, as well as sets of the uncommons and 3-ofs of each dual land. Clearly, they can afford $5-10 cards, but $20+ is clearly the limit. Or might have another random chase mythic (like a completely unrelated Vengevine) that they can trade into other cards.
Teia's point is pretty much what I'm implying. Some people really have tiny budgets, and some people have a serious disdain for purchasing JTMS. Both of them are budget players, and by stating what there budget is numerically upfront, it makes it much easier to suggest cards.
As far as suggesting cards, I guess it's common sense for the most part - don't suggest a playset of BSA if they have the lone Gideon, but making sure they finish their sets of Day of Judgment, Celestial Colonnade, and Glacial Fortress for budget U/W control is the difference between losing and winning several games.
It also might be important to state what country you're in, or any price differences in your area compared to sites like Ebay or magiccards.info. For example, in Yaku's thread, there was a player who wanted a budget RDW. He had a pretty good build, minus Goblin Guide. Since Goblin Guide is about $3.50-4 each, I suggest he find a playset as his highest priority. He responded that while it might be budget in the US, in his country, Goblin Guides cost $12 each, and he was unable to have cards sent to him through Internet stores.
Budget? Yes, of course I would. I don't have the friends to borrow the top dollar cards from and I don't have the funds to buy them, but I do enjoy standard and I like to be as competitive as I can, on my budget.
Great idea for a budget deck sub-forum under standard for us sub-humans who respect their bank account balances. I cringe every time I look for a card and the x4 price comes up over $100. A mans gotta eat too...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I Come To Darken The Way"
"Reject the teaching of the young and thereby suffer no distress."
However, I do think we need to clarify what "budget" actually means. Do we draw the line at $50? $100? $200? No individual cards over $50? A firm definition of "budget" is, of course, necessary for moderating purposes.
We have been over this, Budget has never defined an actual monetary value. It determines as to what hinders the actual decklist.
One is a completely different monetary value, one is merely 5$ difference, and the other is 100$.
What people need to realize is that money doesn't equal competence or incompetence in this game, but it determines another founding variable of success;deck building strength. Therefore, a reader can now determine what budget means, the lack of that very strength.
I think that a budget forum will do nicely here. As for defining said "budget" areas, I believe that there's a sticky for budget players in Standard Deck Creation "yakusoku's Budget Guide to Standard" should ease the debate. Time mythics get their much deserved whippin anyways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Failing to Find" Since March 2010.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Standard:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
I vote YES for a budget forum, because there are actually people who play this game but can't afford to fork out $50+ for a single card, let alone playsets of them. A budget forum would allow budget players to discuss with other players in the same situation and promote more deck discussion within the budget bracket of play.
I think a budget forum would be beneficial to the site for a number of reasons.
A year ago, I was just coming back to Magic and didn't really have the resources to invest into restarting. I was going back to school and had a wife and son to support. I was dedicated enough to relearn the game, the meta, speak with the pros at my local shop, and try become a good player again. My only downside, was lack of funds to build the better decks in the current format. After quite a bit of painstaking research I settled on a Jund build, which was decently priced right before Lorwyn rotated.
It would seem to me a budget discussion thread with well-versed players participating and seeking to help players in a similar situation as me, would greatly improve the community.
A good way to improve one's own expertise is to innovate (crap, I owe Chapin a dime now:rolleyes:) new ways to build decks without the best cards available. If you do this for new players willing to put in the time to listen, you improve your pool of players. Better players means better competition, and that in turn improves your gameplay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Patrick Chapin on SCG »
Magic is a game full of bright people — and all too often bright young men who are used to always being the smartest guy in the room find themselves surrounded by a room full of intelligence and lose their cool.
I'm in favor of a budget friendly standard competitive subforum as well. I've taken 2nd or 3rd place at many 30 and 40 person FNMs with $50-$100 budget decks so I can speak from experience that a deck doesn't have to run big $$$ cards to be competitive.
That said, how exactly "Budget" would be defined is up to question. My suggestion would be decks that cost less than $100 US to build would fall into the budget category, but ultimately determining what constitutes "Budget" would have to fall onto the moderating staff's shoulders. In any case, I am certainly in favor of a T2 competitive budget deck subform.
I'm in favor of a budget friendly standard competitive subforum as well. I've taken 2nd or 3rd place at many 30 and 40 person FNMs with $50-$100 budget decks so I can speak from experience that a deck doesn't have to run big $$$ cards to be competitive.
That said, how exactly "Budget" would be defined is up to question.
I've been out of Magic circulation for a bit but my guess might be to limit it to uncommon and/or common cards, as defined by Gatherer, with certain cards banned, if need be, due to price. It would be difficult to enforce a monetary limit on decks in the budget class. Who'd want to run that tourney? A quick scan of any deck will give you, based on symbol color, if a deck is legal or not, in Standard.
Using all commons would really stretch the deck-building skills and not make it a "who has the deeper purse" issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I Come To Darken The Way"
"Reject the teaching of the young and thereby suffer no distress."
If you create a budget forum and put strict rules on it it will be completely useless.
I'm all for creating a budget forum. I think it will benefit the site greatly and allow non-competitive or FNM players to still discuss card power and building the best deck possible with limited options.
It will also keep the Competitive and Developing Competitive forums clear of non-competitive decks. It has also been kind of annoying in the Developing Threads where people would post budget decks or fringe decks just because it fit the colors...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It evades Phyrexians by hiding in the spaces between seconds.
1. Commons only (Black?)
2. Pauper - I believe only 1 uncommon up to 4x (as it is semi-popular)
3. Uncommon/Common - any blend of U/C (Grey?) (up to 1/2 u?)
4. Uncommons only (Silver?) (>1/2 to full u?)
5. Booster Ratio (my idea) 1r:3u:11c (Booster?) - 2r:6u:22c (max r under 33c) (no mythic)
6. Booster+ (plus) - 4x r; 12x u; remainder common (~20x) (no mythic bs)
so: black, pauper, grey, silver, booster, booster+
[count lands as commons. rare lands count as your 4x. uncommon lands count towards your 12x, etc.]
I wanted mention something that I didn't see mentioned in the number of posts I read before replying.. but just because a deck is budget doesn't mean it's not competitive. In other words, a budget forum doesn't have to be the trash forum that bad decks go to be ignored, but you can have discussion and debates about various decks based upon cost and availability of the cards. This could lead to new synergies being discovered in a non-expensive, non-tournament net-deck format.
A deck without Jace 2.0s can still be successful with 1.0s and Sun Titans, for instance. Sun Titan Control in many ways felt like a budget discussion, until the deck became relatively commonly used and Jace 2.0 proponents refused to validate any deck without it.
While I am in favor of a budget forum, I also think there needs to be 1) specific guidelines to define what is and is not budget (perhaps something along the lines of Heirloom?), and 2) a differentiation between "competitive budget" and "casual budget".
Anyways, looking forward to it if it comes to pass
I would also appreciate a sort of rule saying you must post how much the deck costs, or even prices per card, so you can see the $-value changes as people make suggestions and modifications. This would limit someone from making overpriced suggestions to some extent.
So, when you post your improvement suggestions, you also include current prices for each card, as well as the price for x4, and the price for all the new cards together, minus the price of the old cards, for the upgrade price, which you then add-on to the old price, for the new price for the deck.
so...
(((price per card) X 4) X number of new cards) - (((price per card) X 4) X number of old cards) + price of deck (old) = price of deck (new)
unless you only add in 1x, 2x, or 3x of a card, in which case you must make adjustments on the fly. or when you add-in 25x of relentless rats, for example, or subtract from...
[a price calculator form that also posts to the forum would be nice, like a deck modification forum posting app]
--------
ok, seriously:
a 'pauper' forum, cause there is a pauper format
a commons only forum, subdivided into standard, extended, block, etc.
a common + uncommon forum
a common + uncommon + rare forum (budget)
adding sub-forums to Standard, Extended, etc. forums would be best... but limiting it to just one 'budget' forum would be unproductive. We need/desire more categories. For example, a Standard-Uncommons Only forum would be delightful. But we also want a Standard-50/50 Commons/Uncommons forum, and so on...
it is rediculous, of course, so I guess ifyou start with a 'budget' forum, outside and separate from all the rest, then you can see where the threads are going and make sub-forums from there.
[possibly sub-forums with price ranges? $0-5, $5-$10, $10-15, etc.]
I really think that this is key. Each player's budget is going to differ, sometimes, drastically, from the next. The important point is what the builder is willing to pay. As long as each post has a line somewhere saying "I have X amount to spend", or "I don't mind buying something like X, but I can't afford Jace the Mind Sculptor", then we're fine, while it sets the precedence for what cards to suggest.
I also suggest that Yaku's budget guide be moved to and stickied in this new forum. It's extremely useful and all budget players should read it.
4 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4 Vengevine
4 Koth of the Hammer
4 Elspeth Tirel
4 Venser, the Sojourner
3 Mana Leak
37 whatever
But, if you run 3 Mana Leaks because you can't get a 4th, that makes this deck "budget." Obviously my example is stupid but the point is still there. That is how you know a deck is budget: The person makes less than optimal decisions because of access to cards.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Especially if you can convince yakusoku to post in every thread there!
As I understand the existing "no budget" rules, allowing cost to affect card choice in any fashion isn't allowed, so the simplest way to have a budget forum would be to have the OP post whatever budget they have in mind. I imagine most budget discussion would involve what to change for a planeswalker-less deck, anyway.
Temporarily retired from the game
Thanks a bunch to Rivenor from Miraculous Recovery Signatures for the awesome sigpic!
Rage quit reason of the moment:
Yeah I don't play Jaces because he is hard to get in my area, not because I don't want to drop 300 bucks on a playset. Just kidding.
I can't disagree with this, but I think you are approaching it the wrong way.
While not acquiring that 4th Mana Leak may make deck "budget", you have to consider why the fourth Mana Leak is not acquirable. Some times, it's because it's just not physically possible to get it because it no longer exists or is not available (as will eventually be the case with Eternal formats). Most of the time, however, it's simply not worth the investment. What defines budget in any player's eyes is that the player is willing to invest X quantity or less into Y value..
Relegating "budget" to card availability is flawed because technically, I have every card in the world accessible to me. So does everyone else. They're all a few clicks away on an internet retailer. For instance, I could easily take out a loan to pay for them. However, I'm not willing to spend the rest of my life working to pay off my Black Lotus loan. Why? Because I don't think they are worth the investment. Why didn't I play Superfriends? Because I wasn't willing to put in the time to pay for a $900 deck. I could have. But I didn't. The availability is there. The investment value isn't.
"Budget" is in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants a Goblin deck by tonight so they can have fun at an FNM, giving commentary such as "Study your meta, and if a lot of Valakut is being played, add in Tec Edges" is completely worthless because they aren'tgoing to invest any time into studying the meta. Giving the suggestion that "if Siege-Gang hasn't been performing well, try Eldrazi Monument" to the player who won't put in the effort to test his deck is equally as worthless because he can't tell whether Siege-Gang has been sub-par. Just like the suggestion of Goblin Guides to the $15.00 Goblin player is pointless because he cannot afford them. None of them are willing to invest enough X, and consequently, the advice must be tailored to that.
Availability is one thing. Worthwhile investments are another.
Rather than being called a budget forum, what about calling it "powered down" - where the decks don't have 4 x all of the good cards - a lot of the time you will find someone who may have 2 x the top cards and then fill in the blanks with "almost as good" cards.
The other alternative would be a FNM level forum - almost the same idea but not tagged budget?
BUR Spirit of Crosis BUR
Modern
BW Despair BW
UWR ">Lightning Angel UWR
Commander
BUG Mimeoplasm - Commander BUG
Best definition thus far - give the man a chocolate fish!
BUR Spirit of Crosis BUR
Modern
BW Despair BW
UWR ">Lightning Angel UWR
Commander
BUG Mimeoplasm - Commander BUG
Exactly correct. Lots of times when I've viewed Yaku's guide, people with post budget U/W control decks, which often lack JTMS, BSA, Elspeth, but occasionally have 1 Gideon, and often have enough copies of Sun Titan and Jace Beleren, as well as sets of the uncommons and 3-ofs of each dual land. Clearly, they can afford $5-10 cards, but $20+ is clearly the limit. Or might have another random chase mythic (like a completely unrelated Vengevine) that they can trade into other cards.
Teia's point is pretty much what I'm implying. Some people really have tiny budgets, and some people have a serious disdain for purchasing JTMS. Both of them are budget players, and by stating what there budget is numerically upfront, it makes it much easier to suggest cards.
As far as suggesting cards, I guess it's common sense for the most part - don't suggest a playset of BSA if they have the lone Gideon, but making sure they finish their sets of Day of Judgment, Celestial Colonnade, and Glacial Fortress for budget U/W control is the difference between losing and winning several games.
It also might be important to state what country you're in, or any price differences in your area compared to sites like Ebay or magiccards.info. For example, in Yaku's thread, there was a player who wanted a budget RDW. He had a pretty good build, minus Goblin Guide. Since Goblin Guide is about $3.50-4 each, I suggest he find a playset as his highest priority. He responded that while it might be budget in the US, in his country, Goblin Guides cost $12 each, and he was unable to have cards sent to him through Internet stores.
"I Come To Darken The Way"
"Reject the teaching of the young and thereby suffer no distress."
We have been over this, Budget has never defined an actual monetary value. It determines as to what hinders the actual decklist.
For example:
A) RDW - I don't have money for Goblin Guide, so im using Raging Goblin.
B) UW Control - I don't have money for Jace the Mindsculptor, so I'm using Jace's Erasure.
(For the record, I've seen these both happen)
One is a completely different monetary value, one is merely 5$ difference, and the other is 100$.
What people need to realize is that money doesn't equal competence or incompetence in this game, but it determines another founding variable of success;deck building strength. Therefore, a reader can now determine what budget means, the lack of that very strength.
To be a budget discussion forum, all that has to happen is removing the "no budget discussion" rule.
Just because a player cracked 2 jace the mind sculptors doesn't mean they should be excluded from budget discussion, etc.
No firm rules is how this needs to play out in order to be useful.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
A year ago, I was just coming back to Magic and didn't really have the resources to invest into restarting. I was going back to school and had a wife and son to support. I was dedicated enough to relearn the game, the meta, speak with the pros at my local shop, and try become a good player again. My only downside, was lack of funds to build the better decks in the current format. After quite a bit of painstaking research I settled on a Jund build, which was decently priced right before Lorwyn rotated.
It would seem to me a budget discussion thread with well-versed players participating and seeking to help players in a similar situation as me, would greatly improve the community.
A good way to improve one's own expertise is to innovate (crap, I owe Chapin a dime now:rolleyes:) new ways to build decks without the best cards available. If you do this for new players willing to put in the time to listen, you improve your pool of players. Better players means better competition, and that in turn improves your gameplay.
That said, how exactly "Budget" would be defined is up to question. My suggestion would be decks that cost less than $100 US to build would fall into the budget category, but ultimately determining what constitutes "Budget" would have to fall onto the moderating staff's shoulders. In any case, I am certainly in favor of a T2 competitive budget deck subform.
I've been out of Magic circulation for a bit but my guess might be to limit it to uncommon and/or common cards, as defined by Gatherer, with certain cards banned, if need be, due to price. It would be difficult to enforce a monetary limit on decks in the budget class. Who'd want to run that tourney? A quick scan of any deck will give you, based on symbol color, if a deck is legal or not, in Standard.
Using all commons would really stretch the deck-building skills and not make it a "who has the deeper purse" issue.
"I Come To Darken The Way"
"Reject the teaching of the young and thereby suffer no distress."
I'm all for creating a budget forum. I think it will benefit the site greatly and allow non-competitive or FNM players to still discuss card power and building the best deck possible with limited options.
It will also keep the Competitive and Developing Competitive forums clear of non-competitive decks. It has also been kind of annoying in the Developing Threads where people would post budget decks or fringe decks just because it fit the colors...
U/W/r Control
Wolf Run Red
Hypergeometric Calculator - Mana Math's Best Friend
1. Commons only (Black?)
2. Pauper - I believe only 1 uncommon up to 4x (as it is semi-popular)
3. Uncommon/Common - any blend of U/C (Grey?) (up to 1/2 u?)
4. Uncommons only (Silver?) (>1/2 to full u?)
5. Booster Ratio (my idea) 1r:3u:11c (Booster?) - 2r:6u:22c (max r under 33c) (no mythic)
6. Booster+ (plus) - 4x r; 12x u; remainder common (~20x) (no mythic bs)
so: black, pauper, grey, silver, booster, booster+
[count lands as commons. rare lands count as your 4x. uncommon lands count towards your 12x, etc.]
{booster ++: 8x r; 24x u; >=28x c}
A deck without Jace 2.0s can still be successful with 1.0s and Sun Titans, for instance. Sun Titan Control in many ways felt like a budget discussion, until the deck became relatively commonly used and Jace 2.0 proponents refused to validate any deck without it.
BU[MANA]G[/MANA]W[MANA]R[/MANA]Slivers (Overlord as general)BU[MANA]G[/MANA]W[MANA]R[/MANA]
BMono Black (Xiahou Dun as general)B