I noticed a general sensitivity about the topic of banning cards and wondered how people really feel about it.
I think if a card is too damn popular there must be something wrong with it.
Also, I'd like to see some bullet holes in top played cards just for the principle of shooting them down from their lofty perch. They can have their seasonal run, then just blast em out of the sky. To hell with everyone running around with the same damn cards in their decks. And fetchlands are just a cheap gimmick.
looks like the lower price ranges are winning... budget is basically what you want when you are trying to be creative in competition without wasting money on untried decks (of course you can do proxies, etc, online...) but you sometimes want to be for real and show up with something different that might even win... anyway, I think it is the principle of it, not bowing to the trends and such.
if woc wont ban cards then it is up to us to police ourselves, the honor of winning without playing the card that says, "You WIN!" (before your opponent can play the same damn card)
a 'format' that says no to certain overpriced cards (and overpowered of course) is what is required. It may not be able to compete for the cash, but perhaps is more fun, and worth the effort to build-up
Isn't the point of a budget deck (or format) to describe the difference between those with smaller and those with larger budgets?
Those with larger budgets aren't concerned with making budget decks, or at least don't care about describing what it means to be a budget deck (from the decks perspective, of course). If you get a card that is generally considered to be overpowered and overpriced and you want to include it in your budget deck, go for it, but it means your deck is less 'budget' that it was without the card. I don't like overpowered/overpriced cards in general, especially ones that everyone just HAS to have. If a card is in every deck it is broken. It should be banned, but magic (wizards) makes money on broken cards, so it will not be banned till the next set comes out, at the soonest.
So, let's reconsider the question like this:
1. What cards are simply NOT budget enough to be considered for a budget deck (or format).
2. Is there a reasonable spending limit for any deck to be considered budget? What are the limits for different formats, legacy, etc? You might spend 25% of your income on housing (the average, they say [on the news... duh]) or less. Should you spend an equal amount on cards? If you spend 10% on cards, and the average earner makes $35k/yr, then is $300 a budget deck?
I propose that $30 is a budget deck, but in order to be competitive you have to go higher. So, $30 to $300 is a budget deck, depending on how budget you want to go. In a budget format (as if there could ever be such a thing) there should be levels of play based on current prices for cards, which you calculate when you register your deck for play, whether casual or tourney. People who think $300 is a budget deck wouldn't want to play against $30 dollar decks and vice-versa.
Also, some players wouldn't want to play against a deck that includes overpriced/overpowered cards if they have decided to exclude them from their own decks as a rule. The principle of fairness should take precedence against the possibility of playing an overpowered card by providence.
my take remains the same, ban the 10 most popular cards, limit the spending, make spending ranges for competition as in boxing they have weight ranges. Then you can be proud your deck is a heavyweight or a featherweight
I also like the idea of making a spending limit on the price per card, but this will probably be unimportant if we simply ban individual cards.
The point of the poll is to get an average. You can vote for all if you believe in having ranges of budget formats.
let us vote on which cards should be banned from budget formats (or the budget format) and also what the target price range should be for budget formats (standard, extended, block, etc.)
I foresee a forum under 'The Game' above Casual. It could be called Budget or Budget Competitive. The goal should be to create competitive decks on a budget. So, this is to help decide what that budget should look like. 1/2 of the average price of top decks? 250? lets see
I propose a ban on the following cards in the budget class:
1. Jace, the Mind Sculptor
2. Misty Rainforest
3. Arid Mesa
4. Scalding Tarn
5. Verdant Catacombs
6. Marsh Flats
7. Vengevine
8. Primeval Titan
9. Baneslayer Angel
10. Force of Will
and lets see what the price limit should be, if any, for decks:
I don't really think a price limit is as important as banning cards, but let the poll decide. $100 should be enough, but i guess prices go up.
If you want to discuss Pauper or other random formats just go to the casual section...
It is about having fun, not chasing the bs rare that will probably be declared forbidden (banned) and should be.
There should be at least a budget forum with standard, extended, etc. No restrictions, just trying to save a few $$$ off of the top money decks. Any other subdivision of the formats/forums should be the preference of the individual poster to declare, if deciding to stick to some given format. One might say, "this deck falls within the xxx format parameters." At least one could say it is in the $50 to $100 price range, etc.
This forum would obviously include competitive decks, as no one plays to lose.
For fun decks, like slivers, or vampires (?), should be relegated to the casual forum.
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 think if a card is too damn popular there must be something wrong with it.
Also, I'd like to see some bullet holes in top played cards just for the principle of shooting them down from their lofty perch. They can have their seasonal run, then just blast em out of the sky. To hell with everyone running around with the same damn cards in their decks. And fetchlands are just a cheap gimmick.
So, do you think ANY card should be banned, ever?
or...
Do you think NO card should EVER be banned?
why not?
it is only a fact of life that people make mistakes, such as when making cards for a set, and so on...
yawn...
same old song
What card(s) WILL BE banned?
1. Jace, the Mind Sculptor
2. Misty Rainforest
3. Arid Mesa
4. Scalding Tarn
5. Verdant Catacombs
6. Marsh Flats
7. Vengevine
8. Primeval Titan
9. Baneslayer Angel
10. Force of Will
???
if woc wont ban cards then it is up to us to police ourselves, the honor of winning without playing the card that says, "You WIN!" (before your opponent can play the same damn card)
a 'format' that says no to certain overpriced cards (and overpowered of course) is what is required. It may not be able to compete for the cash, but perhaps is more fun, and worth the effort to build-up
Those with larger budgets aren't concerned with making budget decks, or at least don't care about describing what it means to be a budget deck (from the decks perspective, of course). If you get a card that is generally considered to be overpowered and overpriced and you want to include it in your budget deck, go for it, but it means your deck is less 'budget' that it was without the card. I don't like overpowered/overpriced cards in general, especially ones that everyone just HAS to have. If a card is in every deck it is broken. It should be banned, but magic (wizards) makes money on broken cards, so it will not be banned till the next set comes out, at the soonest.
So, let's reconsider the question like this:
1. What cards are simply NOT budget enough to be considered for a budget deck (or format).
2. Is there a reasonable spending limit for any deck to be considered budget? What are the limits for different formats, legacy, etc? You might spend 25% of your income on housing (the average, they say [on the news... duh]) or less. Should you spend an equal amount on cards? If you spend 10% on cards, and the average earner makes $35k/yr, then is $300 a budget deck?
I propose that $30 is a budget deck, but in order to be competitive you have to go higher. So, $30 to $300 is a budget deck, depending on how budget you want to go. In a budget format (as if there could ever be such a thing) there should be levels of play based on current prices for cards, which you calculate when you register your deck for play, whether casual or tourney. People who think $300 is a budget deck wouldn't want to play against $30 dollar decks and vice-versa.
Also, some players wouldn't want to play against a deck that includes overpriced/overpowered cards if they have decided to exclude them from their own decks as a rule. The principle of fairness should take precedence against the possibility of playing an overpowered card by providence.
my take remains the same, ban the 10 most popular cards, limit the spending, make spending ranges for competition as in boxing they have weight ranges. Then you can be proud your deck is a heavyweight or a featherweight
I also like the idea of making a spending limit on the price per card, but this will probably be unimportant if we simply ban individual cards.
The point of the poll is to get an average. You can vote for all if you believe in having ranges of budget formats.
what do you think, would you change the layout?
and EDH is?
(pardon my ignorance)
I foresee a forum under 'The Game' above Casual. It could be called Budget or Budget Competitive. The goal should be to create competitive decks on a budget. So, this is to help decide what that budget should look like. 1/2 of the average price of top decks? 250? lets see
I propose a ban on the following cards in the budget class:
1. Jace, the Mind Sculptor
2. Misty Rainforest
3. Arid Mesa
4. Scalding Tarn
5. Verdant Catacombs
6. Marsh Flats
7. Vengevine
8. Primeval Titan
9. Baneslayer Angel
10. Force of Will
and lets see what the price limit should be, if any, for decks:
I don't really think a price limit is as important as banning cards, but let the poll decide. $100 should be enough, but i guess prices go up.
It is about having fun, not chasing the bs rare that will probably be declared forbidden (banned) and should be.
There should be at least a budget forum with standard, extended, etc. No restrictions, just trying to save a few $$$ off of the top money decks. Any other subdivision of the formats/forums should be the preference of the individual poster to declare, if deciding to stick to some given format. One might say, "this deck falls within the xxx format parameters." At least one could say it is in the $50 to $100 price range, etc.
This forum would obviously include competitive decks, as no one plays to lose.
For fun decks, like slivers, or vampires (?), should be relegated to the casual forum.
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}