So I'm trying to gear up a thread I have in multiplayer for primer status and wanted to include a budget list, but I'm torn as to what budget is really defined as. I figured asking the community what they want to see when they see that prefix. Is it best to set a cap to the deck's price (for example 230$ for entire deck) or to just keep each card relatively cheap?
A good example would be for Marchesa, the Black Rose. I'd honestly advise a player with even a 100$ budget to consider grabbing Sneak Attack first and foremost, given the incredible natural power and synergy with the leader. However, dropping 40$ on a single card in budget seems outrageous, especially if it's always getting destroyed.
So I guess my real question is, why does one build a "budget" commander deck? Is it meant to just be cheap or is a building block to something greater? I'd feel pretty bad if I went and suggested players devote a certain percent of their budget on a card that may not function in their meta. Any feedback would be appreciated. Especially if you like leaders like Mizzix of the Izmagnus, Reki, the History of Kamigawa or Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest :]
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I think budget for most people comes down to what they will spend on an individual card. Right or wrong, most people don't look at the overall price of the deck, but at each card instead. And it's more the principal of it than the actual money a lot of times. It has increased over time for me, but I would feel guilty and ashamed if I spent over a certain amount for a "piece of cardboard". If you're looking for specifics I would say $5 or $10 limit on individual cards and no more than $100 for the whole deck would be budget.
Hmm. Typically, I'd really only count the cards I actually need to obtain to put the deck together, like how my Heliod deck still doesn't have a copy of Heliod. Because of the sheer size of my collection, all of my decks are budget to me. If I were to look at the cost of a deck in whole, then I don't own a budget deck.
1) Someone whos is literally on a budget. These players don't or can't care if a Gaea's Cradle, Crucible of Worlds, Jace, The Mind Sculptor or old Double Lands would exponentially strengthen the deck, they can't afford that kind of money or chose not to spend these sums. For most players i know of this category 10$ for a card is a barrier they'll only break through if they have to (e.g. for their commander) or they feel like rewarding themselves for something. I only very rarely saw someone who builds like this with a deck worth more than 200$, mostly ~100$.
2) Someone that starts with a budget build. These players start out their decks with a basis of cards that max at something between 5-10$ a card to get it at playable strength and then spread out the investments for the heavy ones they'll need for the final Primer-like deck. This could mean, that they build Omnath, Locus of Rage and start out with a fat pack of ramp spells and essentials of affordable range. All the fetch lands, Crucible of Worlds, Doubling Season, old double lands and so on follow over time. Players with these targets might have a "budget build" around 100-300$ but definetely aim for something far from that.
Bottomline: Combining the two i'd say an average budget build both would run is below 100-150$ and rarely runs cards above 2-5$. From my experience a card like Sneak Attack would rule out Category 1 if they didn't draft it, got it as a gift or vastly traded up.
Ya, this is what I figured. Fortunately my deck lists don't have stand out cards like that, but I guess my definition of budget varies from others. I'll factor all this in when I make the primer for Mizzix
I consider myself a budget player as well, which is why for EDH I currently only have one deck. When I started I pretty much took the cards I had and a $100 budget to build a rough base of a deck, which would be playable and be upgradable. I've set myself a monthly budget of $10 for my EDH needs, slowly working my way towards the deck I want it to be. It helps me being more conscious of the money I set (aside from the occasional splurge) but it also lets me understand the interactions of my deck better. I can see how each newly added card affects the deck and how it improves over time, learning in the process as I build the deck. As well as decide for myself what card I do want to get and which I leave out, whether it's a budget decision or just personal preference.
So if one were to dedicate a section to a budget list in a primer, I'd be looking for a $100-$150 base deck that I can play and use to start learning the deck. As far as individual cards go, as a budget player spending more than $10 on a card is often where I'd hesitate, those are cards I generally look to add last to my deck or see if I can go without. So to me a budget list in Primer should try to justify cards that are more expensive, like Underhill83 said, explain why it's worth getting so people can make a calculated decision on whether they want to get it sooner or later (or at all).
Budget all depends on the player. Some are so strapped for money that even $50 would be too much. Some would say that their budget would be $200. Of course most players are probably middle class with some extra cash to spend. MTG is an expensive hobby to initially get into. For me I just put the budget at $100 mostly because it just lines up nicely with the fact that EDH is a 100-card format. "The average price of each card in your deck is $1" is just simple to me.
I build budget decks for several reasons...
1) It's a different take on deckbuilding when you can't just jam in every powerful card. For example my budget Prossh deck would not drop the money on Sylvan Library, but maybe if it was for Craterhoof behemoth I would try to find room. Or maybe the correct line is to get the sylvan library and replace the craterhoof with *insert random card that works well with tokens even if it's not as efficient as craterhoof*. Or maybe the correct line is to get both and find budget cuts elsewhere. or maybe you shouldn't get either and spend the money elsewhere. This is not to say that deckbuilding in the normal way is mindless, but with budget constraints you need to weigh in additional factors that you didn't have to before.
2) It's to help give a guideline to other players (both online and those I meet IRL) who may not have a lot of disposable income and may shy away from the game/format because of these perceived monetary barriers.
3) you get to experiment with cards that you may not play with otherwise. For example my budget prossh deck doesn't play sylvan library, but I still need cards with low CMC that can help smooth my draws early on. So now I'll experiment with things like painful truths or night's whisper that I may not normally play. Instead of sensei's divining top, what if I try out faithless looting? Instead of craterhoof behemoth, what if I tried out pathbreaker ibex? etc.
4) I do have some budget constraints personally. I'm not poor, but I do have quite a few decks that cost some money and pimping out all my decks with playable cards can add up (not necessarily the expensive things like ABU duals, but even jamming sensei's divining top into all of my decks can get out of hand). I like having a large array of decks that have different playstyles but making them all optimally can get pricy.
When I'm thinking about my Magic budget, the price of individual cards doesn't matter so much to me as the price of the whole deck. You could cap yourself at no more than 10.00 a card, and theoretically come up with a thousand dollar deck. For me, it's the price of the deck that matters. My Kemba list ran about 275 all together, with the bulk of the money tied up in swords and Jitte.
I consider any deck that's making card choices based on financial constraints to be at least somewhat budget. Where that line is varies wildly from player to player. Budget considerations for me are quite a bit different than budget considerations for the average high school student.
If you're trying to add budget lists to your posts, I agree with a few other people that $100-200 is a good target, with some consideration given to individual card prices. You can also make a budget list, but include pricier upgrades in order of priority. If Sneak Attack is going to massively improve the deck, add it as a footnote. That helps the people who are looking for a cheap option, but also gives a road map for improving the deck most efficiently.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
When I'm thinking about my Magic budget, the price of individual cards doesn't matter so much to me as the price of the whole deck. You could cap yourself at no more than 10.00 a card, and theoretically come up with a thousand dollar deck. For me, it's the price of the deck that matters. My Kemba list ran about 275 all together, with the bulk of the money tied up in swords and Jitte.
This makes sense if you assume the person just has a certain amount to spend and knows how to budget properly. If you're trading, acquiring eight $5 cards will typically be easier than getting that one $40 card, because nobody wants to trade down, etc. Additionally, some like doing things incrementally and/or just plan have trouble saving money. ("If I don't spend $5 on cards now, I'll spend at the bar tonight instead.")
I'd like to consider myself a budget player, but the evidence doesn't support this except in the broad sense (no Gaea's Cradle, duals, etc.).
It sounds like one defining trait is the ability to trade. I don't have access to players with good binders, (I can never be at the LGS when mtg players would be there) so I've been ordering pretty much every card over 10$. So when I think of budget, it means putting some meat into a pile of .03 cent - 50 cent cards and take it from there. Even if I'm missing some of those cheap cards, I can tag them onto other orders, unless its some crazy obscure card that ends up being a 1$ foil.
I consider any deck that's making card choices based on financial constraints to be at least somewhat budget. Where that line is varies wildly from player to player. Budget considerations for me are quite a bit different than budget considerations for the average high school student.
If you're trying to add budget lists to your posts, I agree with a few other people that $100-200 is a good target, with some consideration given to individual card prices. You can also make a budget list, but include pricier upgrades in order of priority. If Sneak Attack is going to massively improve the deck, add it as a footnote. That helps the people who are looking for a cheap option, but also gives a road map for improving the deck most efficiently.
Starting to sound like the path with the most appeal. 120$ budget seems fair since it'll be three times the price of the precons. I know tons of casuals who buy three to all of the precons each year.
Generally I define it as how much I have to spend to acquire a deck, which means that my definition will vary wildly from the norm, because I own a lot of old, expensive cards. An example would be my Mina and Denn, Wildborn list. I picked up the Freyalise C14 precon, and a couple of cards I was missing for the lands portion (hideaway lands, and things that interact with them), but I already had things like Gaea's Cradle/Azusa, Lost but Seeking/Taiga. So while it was budget for me, it wasn't very budget overall.
Probably not the most realistic definition for budget, but I usually go with "no buying new cards for this deck" and I've already made decks that are using the staples for the colour(s) of the budget deck (mostly lands and other expensive things like demonic tutor). I just build it from my collection, so it might not actually be budget, it's just I end up losing $0 for it.
Generally I define it as how much I have to spend to acquire a deck, which means that my definition will vary wildly from the norm, because I own a lot of old, expensive cards. An example would be my Mina and Denn, Wildborn list. I picked up the Freyalise C14 precon, and a couple of cards I was missing for the lands portion (hideaway lands, and things that interact with them), but I already had things like Gaea's Cradle/Azusa, Lost but Seeking/Taiga. So while it was budget for me, it wasn't very budget overall.
Probably not the most realistic definition for budget, but I usually go with "no buying new cards for this deck" and I've already made decks that are using the staples for the colour(s) of the budget deck (mostly lands and other expensive things like demonic tutor). I just build it from my collection, so it might not actually be budget, it's just I end up losing $0 for it.
This works as a personal definition of budget, but not when you're trying to add a budget list to a post for other people. I've been playing for a while and spent more money than is responsible by most standards on this game. The last deck I put together was creatureless Zurgo. I don't think I spent any money on cards for that deck (I might have bought a Havoc Festival?), but it runs Tabernacle, Abyss, a fetch/dual manabase, and various other cards along those lines. I couldn't call that a budget list by any stretch of the imagination, even if I didn't spend any additional money on it.
The question in this thread seems more like what you could tag as budget online without being laughed out of the room.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
Generally I define it as how much I have to spend to acquire a deck, which means that my definition will vary wildly from the norm, because I own a lot of old, expensive cards. An example would be my Mina and Denn, Wildborn list. I picked up the Freyalise C14 precon, and a couple of cards I was missing for the lands portion (hideaway lands, and things that interact with them), but I already had things like Gaea's Cradle/Azusa, Lost but Seeking/Taiga. So while it was budget for me, it wasn't very budget overall.
Probably not the most realistic definition for budget, but I usually go with "no buying new cards for this deck" and I've already made decks that are using the staples for the colour(s) of the budget deck (mostly lands and other expensive things like demonic tutor). I just build it from my collection, so it might not actually be budget, it's just I end up losing $0 for it.
This works as a personal definition of budget, but not when you're trying to add a budget list to a post for other people. I've been playing for a while and spent more money than is responsible by most standards on this game. The last deck I put together was creatureless Zurgo. I don't think I spent any money on cards for that deck (I might have bought a Havoc Festival?), but it runs Tabernacle, Abyss, a fetch/dual manabase, and various other cards along those lines. I couldn't call that a budget list by any stretch of the imagination, even if I didn't spend any additional money on it.
The question in this thread seems more like what you could tag as budget online without being laughed out of the room.
This is essentially my issue. My metas I have a rule where we can proxy cards we own from other decks so we dont need to move expensive cards into diff cases. Even cutting the proxies I still have a ton of cards unique to the deck (at this point I can admit this is all for Mizzix the Sneak Attack example may have been misleading) that may not fill the budget quota, but I think given that some people have mentioned its understandable to go to say, 20$. So I think cards like Time Spiral can still be included as the "high end" cards, especially when the Moderately Played bring the 20$ to 13-16$.
I think in the end the only issue will be when redundancy comes up and what would be budget subs are already taking up slots in the deck. I think I'm going to play with the idea of a meta card section when giving a "decklist by card function" so that there are 5 slots or so a player can have space to run proper cards or have space to fill in what their budget lacks, like Wheeling effects.
Generally I define it as how much I have to spend to acquire a deck, which means that my definition will vary wildly from the norm, because I own a lot of old, expensive cards. An example would be my Mina and Denn, Wildborn list. I picked up the Freyalise C14 precon, and a couple of cards I was missing for the lands portion (hideaway lands, and things that interact with them), but I already had things like Gaea's Cradle/Azusa, Lost but Seeking/Taiga. So while it was budget for me, it wasn't very budget overall.
Probably not the most realistic definition for budget, but I usually go with "no buying new cards for this deck" and I've already made decks that are using the staples for the colour(s) of the budget deck (mostly lands and other expensive things like demonic tutor). I just build it from my collection, so it might not actually be budget, it's just I end up losing $0 for it.
This works as a personal definition of budget, but not when you're trying to add a budget list to a post for other people. I've been playing for a while and spent more money than is responsible by most standards on this game. The last deck I put together was creatureless Zurgo. I don't think I spent any money on cards for that deck (I might have bought a Havoc Festival?), but it runs Tabernacle, Abyss, a fetch/dual manabase, and various other cards along those lines. I couldn't call that a budget list by any stretch of the imagination, even if I didn't spend any additional money on it.
The question in this thread seems more like what you could tag as budget online without being laughed out of the room.
Ya, I agree. I just never build a deck from scratch so even $100 or $200 seems like a lot of money, even though that is average $1 or $2, respectively, per card, which is perfectly reasonable. I'd probably put budget as $200 or less, but I'd still not want to buy that full list if I was just starting out in magic lol.
This works as a personal definition of budget, but not when you're trying to add a budget list to a post for other people. I've been playing for a while and spent more money than is responsible by most standards on this game. The last deck I put together was creatureless Zurgo. I don't think I spent any money on cards for that deck (I might have bought a Havoc Festival?), but it runs Tabernacle, Abyss, a fetch/dual manabase, and various other cards along those lines. I couldn't call that a budget list by any stretch of the imagination, even if I didn't spend any additional money on it.
The question in this thread seems more like what you could tag as budget online without being laughed out of the room.
True, but it can help you set up a budget section for a deck. Generally, I set the one I previously had in my Marath list up by looking at some of my more expensive cards, and figuring out what kinds of cards I would run in their place if I didn't have them. I did eventually scrap the idea, because it was too difficult to get an accurate representation of what budget options for such a varied commander were.
In my opinion, a "budget" deck is one that is comparable in price to the MTG Precons. If I sat down with other players, and announced that I was "playing a budget deck today" then I would expect that it would function similar to a precon deck out of the box. So about $40 would be a "budget" deck from my perspective, which would include a deck of 100 cards that function with the commander.
Whenever I build a deck, there are additional expenses involved, which then increases the total budget which must be allocated for the deck.
1. Pro Satin Tower Deck Box - $10
2. Dragon Shield pack of 100 sleeves - $10
3. Set of color coordinated dice for the deck - $10
4. Tokens for the deck (I make sure I have at least two tokens for each type necessary in the deck, and often I want a variety [or all] of artwork if its a tribal theme, plus planeswalker emblems, experience card, poison counters, etc...) - $5 - $15
So, overall, I would say a budget deck would cost a total of $75 to $85 to bring it to the table.
I would agree with NoNeed, budget to me is around $100-150. It gives you a bit of wiggle room to go past $1 per card for a few things but not much more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern: RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
I have been building budget decks for a while now and find the deck building process much more interesting than no-holds-barred deck building. With 100-150 you have room for a few key expensive cards but have to rely on the wealth of dollar rares to flush out your deck. Trying to distill what the strategy of a deck is going to be without relying big money bomb cards is really interesting. When you do it right it feels really good.
My definition of budget comes from pre-modern era (before prices shot up so much).
Budget, pre-modern: $100 for entire deck with no single card costing more than $5.
However, post modern, I'll have to admit that, to get the same amount of casual potency out of decks, the ratios need to be changed a little. While my definition of budget hasn't really changed, my attitude to remain competitive with the same level of quality cards has. Therefore, while I sometimes wince at a purchase price,
Budget, post-modern: $200 for entire deck with no single card costing more than $10.
The decklists I've put together range from ~ $150-$250 per build; this is 'post-modern' value. I've never spent more than $100 on a single deck before, though now with a decent collection base I typically spend between ~ $20-$30 + existing cards when I put a new deck idea together.
If a card costs more than $10 and an opponent owns more than one copy, playing them in different decks (especially if it's a Legendary), it grates on me a little because I know I can't/won't compete. Not saying here 'don't play more than one copy'....just saying 'I'll have to live with it, even if I don't necessarily like it' - I'm sure I run cards that my opponents groan at too.
I've tried the proxy thing, even for cards I already own in other decks, and personally I've found that I don't like it. So I build with that in mind and share resources amongst my active decks, placing cards from my collection where they will best impact.
For example, I just moved my Genesis Wave from Animar to Radha. It worked just fine in Animar, but Radha makes it work better.
usually ends up being something like 30 of your nonland cards account for $60-90, the other ~30 are staples and $0.50-$1 stuff like signets and cultivates
I haven't built a decent budget mana base in a long time though, 3 color is probably really expensive now. Allied painlands used to be $1, now they're $5-10. Same for Scars of Mirrodin duals and Odyssey filterlands. Allied checklands are still like $3, but enemy (innistrad) ones are $5-10.
Everything useful is just getting more and more expensive as EDH and Modern pick up more and more players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
For me, $200-$250 seems budget, but even with that valuation such a deck would have a hard time being competitive in my playgroup or at my LGS. I don't see much of a point in building a deck that won't be competitive. Anything less than $200 in total valuation means you're substituting too many good cards with poorer performing iterations of them. Too many sacrifices being made.
Personally I've got 20 decks, I doubt any of them are worth less than $500. However, when I do set about creating a new deck, I try to keep my expenditure for NEW cards I need to acquire under $200, which is then supplemented with cards from the rest of my collection.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A good example would be for Marchesa, the Black Rose. I'd honestly advise a player with even a 100$ budget to consider grabbing Sneak Attack first and foremost, given the incredible natural power and synergy with the leader. However, dropping 40$ on a single card in budget seems outrageous, especially if it's always getting destroyed.
So I guess my real question is, why does one build a "budget" commander deck? Is it meant to just be cheap or is a building block to something greater? I'd feel pretty bad if I went and suggested players devote a certain percent of their budget on a card that may not function in their meta. Any feedback would be appreciated. Especially if you like leaders like Mizzix of the Izmagnus, Reki, the History of Kamigawa or Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest :]
URXSurf's Up, Mizz Magnus!XRU
URGWKynaios and Tiro's Multiplayer MenagerieWGRU
I would say $200 and under is budget to me, but could easily see people saying half that.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
1) Someone whos is literally on a budget. These players don't or can't care if a Gaea's Cradle, Crucible of Worlds, Jace, The Mind Sculptor or old Double Lands would exponentially strengthen the deck, they can't afford that kind of money or chose not to spend these sums. For most players i know of this category 10$ for a card is a barrier they'll only break through if they have to (e.g. for their commander) or they feel like rewarding themselves for something. I only very rarely saw someone who builds like this with a deck worth more than 200$, mostly ~100$.
2) Someone that starts with a budget build. These players start out their decks with a basis of cards that max at something between 5-10$ a card to get it at playable strength and then spread out the investments for the heavy ones they'll need for the final Primer-like deck. This could mean, that they build Omnath, Locus of Rage and start out with a fat pack of ramp spells and essentials of affordable range. All the fetch lands, Crucible of Worlds, Doubling Season, old double lands and so on follow over time. Players with these targets might have a "budget build" around 100-300$ but definetely aim for something far from that.
Bottomline: Combining the two i'd say an average budget build both would run is below 100-150$ and rarely runs cards above 2-5$. From my experience a card like Sneak Attack would rule out Category 1 if they didn't draft it, got it as a gift or vastly traded up.
URXSurf's Up, Mizz Magnus!XRU
URGWKynaios and Tiro's Multiplayer MenagerieWGRU
So if one were to dedicate a section to a budget list in a primer, I'd be looking for a $100-$150 base deck that I can play and use to start learning the deck. As far as individual cards go, as a budget player spending more than $10 on a card is often where I'd hesitate, those are cards I generally look to add last to my deck or see if I can go without. So to me a budget list in Primer should try to justify cards that are more expensive, like Underhill83 said, explain why it's worth getting so people can make a calculated decision on whether they want to get it sooner or later (or at all).
I build budget decks for several reasons...
1) It's a different take on deckbuilding when you can't just jam in every powerful card. For example my budget Prossh deck would not drop the money on Sylvan Library, but maybe if it was for Craterhoof behemoth I would try to find room. Or maybe the correct line is to get the sylvan library and replace the craterhoof with *insert random card that works well with tokens even if it's not as efficient as craterhoof*. Or maybe the correct line is to get both and find budget cuts elsewhere. or maybe you shouldn't get either and spend the money elsewhere. This is not to say that deckbuilding in the normal way is mindless, but with budget constraints you need to weigh in additional factors that you didn't have to before.
2) It's to help give a guideline to other players (both online and those I meet IRL) who may not have a lot of disposable income and may shy away from the game/format because of these perceived monetary barriers.
3) you get to experiment with cards that you may not play with otherwise. For example my budget prossh deck doesn't play sylvan library, but I still need cards with low CMC that can help smooth my draws early on. So now I'll experiment with things like painful truths or night's whisper that I may not normally play. Instead of sensei's divining top, what if I try out faithless looting? Instead of craterhoof behemoth, what if I tried out pathbreaker ibex? etc.
4) I do have some budget constraints personally. I'm not poor, but I do have quite a few decks that cost some money and pimping out all my decks with playable cards can add up (not necessarily the expensive things like ABU duals, but even jamming sensei's divining top into all of my decks can get out of hand). I like having a large array of decks that have different playstyles but making them all optimally can get pricy.
WUBRGProgenitus
URGMaelstrom Wanderer
WUBOloro, Ageless Ascetic
WURZedruu, the Greathearted
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher ($100)
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician ($100)
UGKruphix, God of Horizons ($100)(retired)UTalrand, Sky Summoner (French 1v1, $100)
If you're trying to add budget lists to your posts, I agree with a few other people that $100-200 is a good target, with some consideration given to individual card prices. You can also make a budget list, but include pricier upgrades in order of priority. If Sneak Attack is going to massively improve the deck, add it as a footnote. That helps the people who are looking for a cheap option, but also gives a road map for improving the deck most efficiently.
This makes sense if you assume the person just has a certain amount to spend and knows how to budget properly. If you're trading, acquiring eight $5 cards will typically be easier than getting that one $40 card, because nobody wants to trade down, etc. Additionally, some like doing things incrementally and/or just plan have trouble saving money. ("If I don't spend $5 on cards now, I'll spend at the bar tonight instead.")
I'd like to consider myself a budget player, but the evidence doesn't support this except in the broad sense (no Gaea's Cradle, duals, etc.).
Starting to sound like the path with the most appeal. 120$ budget seems fair since it'll be three times the price of the precons. I know tons of casuals who buy three to all of the precons each year.
URXSurf's Up, Mizz Magnus!XRU
URGWKynaios and Tiro's Multiplayer MenagerieWGRU
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
The question in this thread seems more like what you could tag as budget online without being laughed out of the room.
This is essentially my issue. My metas I have a rule where we can proxy cards we own from other decks so we dont need to move expensive cards into diff cases. Even cutting the proxies I still have a ton of cards unique to the deck (at this point I can admit this is all for Mizzix the Sneak Attack example may have been misleading) that may not fill the budget quota, but I think given that some people have mentioned its understandable to go to say, 20$. So I think cards like Time Spiral can still be included as the "high end" cards, especially when the Moderately Played bring the 20$ to 13-16$.
I think in the end the only issue will be when redundancy comes up and what would be budget subs are already taking up slots in the deck. I think I'm going to play with the idea of a meta card section when giving a "decklist by card function" so that there are 5 slots or so a player can have space to run proper cards or have space to fill in what their budget lacks, like Wheeling effects.
URXSurf's Up, Mizz Magnus!XRU
URGWKynaios and Tiro's Multiplayer MenagerieWGRU
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
Whenever I build a deck, there are additional expenses involved, which then increases the total budget which must be allocated for the deck.
1. Pro Satin Tower Deck Box - $10
2. Dragon Shield pack of 100 sleeves - $10
3. Set of color coordinated dice for the deck - $10
4. Tokens for the deck (I make sure I have at least two tokens for each type necessary in the deck, and often I want a variety [or all] of artwork if its a tribal theme, plus planeswalker emblems, experience card, poison counters, etc...) - $5 - $15
So, overall, I would say a budget deck would cost a total of $75 to $85 to bring it to the table.
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
Budget, pre-modern: $100 for entire deck with no single card costing more than $5.
However, post modern, I'll have to admit that, to get the same amount of casual potency out of decks, the ratios need to be changed a little. While my definition of budget hasn't really changed, my attitude to remain competitive with the same level of quality cards has. Therefore, while I sometimes wince at a purchase price,
Budget, post-modern: $200 for entire deck with no single card costing more than $10.
The decklists I've put together range from ~ $150-$250 per build; this is 'post-modern' value. I've never spent more than $100 on a single deck before, though now with a decent collection base I typically spend between ~ $20-$30 + existing cards when I put a new deck idea together.
If a card costs more than $10 and an opponent owns more than one copy, playing them in different decks (especially if it's a Legendary), it grates on me a little because I know I can't/won't compete. Not saying here 'don't play more than one copy'....just saying 'I'll have to live with it, even if I don't necessarily like it' - I'm sure I run cards that my opponents groan at too.
I've tried the proxy thing, even for cards I already own in other decks, and personally I've found that I don't like it. So I build with that in mind and share resources amongst my active decks, placing cards from my collection where they will best impact.
For example, I just moved my Genesis Wave from Animar to Radha. It worked just fine in Animar, but Radha makes it work better.
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
usually ends up being something like 30 of your nonland cards account for $60-90, the other ~30 are staples and $0.50-$1 stuff like signets and cultivates
I haven't built a decent budget mana base in a long time though, 3 color is probably really expensive now. Allied painlands used to be $1, now they're $5-10. Same for Scars of Mirrodin duals and Odyssey filterlands. Allied checklands are still like $3, but enemy (innistrad) ones are $5-10.
Everything useful is just getting more and more expensive as EDH and Modern pick up more and more players.
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
Click here and check out my Formerly Pauper Cube.
check out my EDH and Pauper EDH decks here
Personally I've got 20 decks, I doubt any of them are worth less than $500. However, when I do set about creating a new deck, I try to keep my expenditure for NEW cards I need to acquire under $200, which is then supplemented with cards from the rest of my collection.