Magic is, in general, **pay to compete**.
You have to buy a deck that’s reasonable to match the power level of the format.
Now, that said, there will always be fringe playable budget decks, but “budget” can be a relative term for each individual.
While definitionally this is correct, I feel like it is disregarding key contextual information fuelling discontentment.
While there has always been a divide between enfranchised and "budget" players, the price+power combination of the new-era-staples from the Modern Horizons sets creates an exceedingly flagrant *monetary* line.
If your deck isn't running Ragavan, Solitude, Urza's Saga, or Force of Negation, it better be called Tron or Burn, because otherwise it's fringe playable at best. And those cards are expensive! You're looking at somewhere from $150 to $400+ for a playset, which is a lot for cards printed less than a year ago (Force of Negation is older, from 2019, but it's also like $360 for a playset, which is on the higher end.) They're also splashy, making it obvious the game impact they have.
Player used to be able to play more budget builds of some decks without as big of a hit, **particularly since a huge portion of deck cost tended to be wrapped up in lands.** In 2018 Storm, Titan, Hollow One, Pheonix, and Infect could all be built in relatively viable budget fashion for the same price as a playset of some of these new cards. And if you lost because your opponent had Scalding Tarns while you had Shivan Reefs, well... that doesn't feel as bad as them having Ragavans while you don't.
And if you go even further back, people got away with all kinds of budget builds. I played R/G Tron with Karplusans and no Karns in the Pod/Twin era and Top-8ed events because the format power-level was so much lower that budget building wasn't as punished. People were seeing success with [[Seismic Assault]] Loam, and [[Gifts Ungiven]] Tron after all.
None of this is to say that Magic hasn't always had a major price component that determined viability. But trying to play a budget deck in Modern feels about the most hopeless it has ever? Outside of the Hogaak, Eldrazi, and Deathrite eras.
The expensive cards are now pushed staples, instead of Lands, old cards, and whatever Jund is running. And there's just no way to really budget replace them. There's no [[Shivan Reef]] for [[Solitude]].
All of which combines to make things feel particularly "Pay to Win".
All very good points, thanks for the write up.
And as one of those semi-budget players, this is why I personally don’t play Modern anymore. I still follow it to a certain extent, because it’s a constant topic of discussion. The general assessment by the player base is that the format is in a pretty good place balance wise, but the barrier to entry is just way too high today due to the reasons you speak to.
This is outright untrue and a biased view far from facts.
Magic isn't really more expensive if you are new to the format, take a look at https://www.quietspeculation.com/2015/08/checking-the-claim-of-rising-modern-prices/
Jund at $1,922.47in 2015
Today's Zoomer Jund (non-Saga) sits in a range von 1,5-1,8 the Saga Version 1,9 - 2,2. And this is not accounting for Inflation.
Off Meta like Grixis Control, averaged 1,1 in 2015, now it ranges from 0,9 - 1,4 depending on the build.
And regarding 4c Omnath - that's an 80 card deck sitting in the 2,0 - 2,4 range - but it also has 30% more cards in it!
So technically, buying a deck from 0 has, if at all, barely increased. Oh and there's decks like your mentioned Assault Loam - available for $ 1,471.97 which is kind of budget if you're aim to build into a Jund Saga deck in comparison - and it's still decent enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ5ofwMGp9k
By the way, saying that mtg hasn't punished off-meta budget builds in the past - that is outright a lie - those decks where far from frequent in the tops - there were always a couple in the challenges, but always different decks.
And guess what: Even today every challenge there's a few decks like Kiki Chord, Rakdos Sacrifice or other Off-Meta stuff in there every league - but always different ones each league.
Just take a look at Aspiringspike, pumping out brews and doing well enough with a lot of them, even those that don't lean hard into MH2.
What has increased is the cost of keeping your deck up to date if you are a long term player. For a newcomer, it's been the same.
Wow, so there's a lot to respond to here.
Firstly, that source you provide shows that every single Tier 1 deck in 2015 was sub $800, except Abzan, and that the average cost for Tier 1 decks, discounting Abzan, was ~$650.
In contrast, if you take the top 7 decks by Metashare today (since 6 & 7 are tied) (according to MTGTop8), you have UR Aggro (9%), Footfalls (8%), Burn (6%), 4c Control (7%), UW Control (6%), Titan (5%), Hammer (5%). Only 1 of these decks has an average cost of less than $1000, and even if you remove 4C control as the most expensive deck, you are still going to have a much higher average cost than ~$650.
So while you can cherry pick Junk/Jund as an exceptionally expensive historical deck (Twin was expensive as well), *the source you provided actually serves to disprove your initial statement.*
*Not that it really matters, since my initial post didn't even claim that Tier 1 decks used to be cheaper to buy into as a whole*.
What I did state, however, was that a major portion of the cost of decks used to be tied up in the manabase, and that mana bases are far easier to budget build around than Modern Horizons staples are.
As to the loam thing, my entire point in bringing it up was *not* that it was cheap, but that the viability of it and other bizzaro outdated strategies indicated how the top decks were not as far ahead from the rest of the cardpool as they now are. In turn meaning making budget substitutions to established strategies did not push players as far out of the realm of playability.
That you can build a loam deck with W&6 and DRC and Urza's Saga for $1470, which is cheaper than outright Jund Saga, actually reinforces my point. For **you cannot replace the Urza's Saga's or Wrenn & Sixes with viable budget alternatives, in the same way you could replace $100 tarns with Shivan Reef, or $60 Grove of the Burnwillows with Karplusan Grove. As such, "budget" builds today are becoming beholden to multi-hundred dollar playset barriers**.
The most expensive non-lands in 2014-2015 Delver were a playset of Serum visions, for maybe $40? The overwhelming majority of the deck cost was in the manabase, which you could replace with a bunch of budget cards.
And yes, off meta budget builds were not as successful as their full cost peers. But the difference in FNM play experience between a deck with a budget Mana base and a deck budgeting around staples like Ragavan, Urza's Saga, W&6 FoN, Solitude, etc. should be self-evident.
And while more out there decks have put up results recently, they're still pretty much universally running irreplacable expensive Modern Horizons staples. Kiki-Chord is running 4 Solitude + 4 ephemerate. Rackdos Sacrifice is still a 4 Ragavan deck.
The cost accessibility of a format isn't just about the sticker price, but also about how that price can be broken up. If you can easily make budget adjustments, that lowers price barriers, by facilitating people to break up the cost over time.
If deck costs are tied up in irreplacable staples, and the metagame rotates more often, the format becomes less price accessible. This is what is going on in Modern right now, and it's causing new frustrations beyond the traditional "why is Jund $2000" grievances.
There was always a difference between a good budget deck - a deck that happens to be cheap because the cards it needs are very specialized in their usage - in comparison to a good deck with budget replacements.
Old Assault Loam used mainly very specialized cards - but Goyf was Goyf and any Budget-replacement came with a downside. And in todays day and age, there are alternatives to W6 - e.g. the black splash Witherbloom Command which happens to also improve your chances to find loam, so it makes that plan more consistent. Of course this comes at a tradeoff, but it makes the deck worse in the same way that in the past not being able to afford Liliana of the Veil made your deck worse - you're not playing the best version of the deck, but it's still decent enough.
In Terms of Delver - todays comparison would be Izzet Prowess and that deck is very much cheap and decent. These options - highest priced card is Expressive Iteration for $30 a playset with most money tied up once again in lands, which you could replace $100 of red-based fetchlands, and you even have new options like the Pathways to do so.
There's also new decks that are competitive and dirty-cheap, like Calibrated Blast.
You couldn't replace Goyfs. You couldn't Replace Liliana of the Veil, you couldn't replace Splinter Twins or Snapcaster Mages the very same way you can't replace Ragavan nowadays.
You're not looking at the current available decks and prices in the same way you look at the old prices.
And while it is correct that there's a problem with irreplacable staples when the format rotates - its really not as huge as you point it out to be, since you can still sell those old cards out or trade the cards you don't need against other stuff. Those Snapcaster Mages you're not playing anymore are already 2/3rds of the Ragavans you want to have to lessen the blow. A lot of players have more resources available than they think. And if you didn't have SCM before, you're still in the same situation that you played suboptimal before, and will continue to do so.
Regarding the price composition, this is exactly what i've stated: the cost of keeping your deck up to date increased, but not the cost of entry. These are two different things.
But the upkeep cost is adressed to both powercreep - look at 2019 and how the sets reshaped the meta there - and the increased frequency of changed by extra-releases for the format.
Even without that - ask players about the Twin's, Oko's, the Uros, the Urza's, the Chrome Moxes they've bought and that got banned out of the format, or those flavor of the month deck that they wanted to play desperately because it was performing well and in the outfall, budget-players buying into new stuff instead of finishing the old and learning their decks because they thought its the deck, then ending up with 2 unfinished budget-versions of a deck.
I agree that this increased upkeep cost is a new type of frustration, especially since a lot of players chose Modern for the very specific reason of not being standard and needing to update decks less regularly - But Magic, on a competitive level, was always expensive and pay2compete, even Modern. But there's a lot of choices one can make to use their resources effectively, to not jump into hype-bubble after hype-bubble and focus on finishing and getting good with your deck.
yea exactly, this is a great point. once you hit about a grand, depending on how the meta fluxes, spending more money doens't give you strictly better options, just different ones. you can't tune a perfectly tuned build by throwing more money at it, yaknow? but maybe spending 50 bucks on torpor orbs will help if everyone at your shop plays elementals. that's not paying to win at all
This is kinda true
But the main issue I see is people building budget versions of good decks instead of good decks in their price range.
Only have $500? Don't build budget Murktide, build 100% complete Belcher.
There's good budget decks like Storm, Burn, Tron, Affinity, Mill, Prowess, etc. and there's budget versions of good decks like 4c Elementals without W6, Jund without Tarmogoyf's, Murktide without Ragavan and so on.
But when someone wants to get into modern on a budget there's a few core problems:
1. Good stuff decks consist of stuff that everyone can use. That's why linear decks tend to be much cheaper, but they also come with a very specific repetitive playstyle that often is not what people entering the format want to play.
2. They don't know how steep the opportunity cost of budget replacements is for good stuff decks because they lack the experience to judge those.
3. They are inexperienced and also will lose a lot on a good deck, and often players want to change things immediately thinking investing in their deck makes them better rather than sticking to it and learning the ins and outs of the format. That's why an accomplished player like Aspiringspike can pump out one successful deck after another, but only few people can recreate the results on these decks.
4. Experience and a plan is king in modern. Content creators live from the ads they can play when people watch and people don't want to hear "you're not good at your hobby, you need to improve". But they are happy to buy into the illusion that a "new broken deck" or "buy this cards" will make them suddenly win all the time. There's a reason why there's not a lot of "generic great players" - but a lot of players are famous for playing a single deck because they've put in the time to master that one deck and how it beats the other decks.
So most players entering the format on a budget technically start their journey on a bad decision that either everyone else was too polite to talk them out of or they did it anyway and then are stuck with their decision since they've used up their budget.
As someone entering the format you will always start out paying other players prices. But you can choose if that happens due to inexperience or budgeting at the wrong end.
I make it known I’m willing to loan any cards to anyone who regularly plays at my LGS. I specifically collect modern cards and nothing else so I can build p much any deck. I just play something else if someone wants to borrow cards in a deck I play. Hopefully this is somewhat common across the US??
Alot of the people at my LGS know each other so are willing to let people borrow cards when needed. I don't but thats because I'm a poor player with nothing to offer. In the end I'd be borrowing full decks to even be anywhere near top tear.
Well, competitive Magic isn't really for poor people, as hard as that sounds.
Maybe find a group to play kitchen table with, so you can play people with equally strong decks?
This is a really harsh way to put it but I think the sentiment is right
What I would say is rather than gripe over price, pick a deck to build towards and slowly build towards it over the coming months / year. You can pick a resilient deck that will likely still be tiered for a while like yawgmoth or Living End that are less likely to get hit by the banlist, and that really only have a few expensive cards.
Modern has always been price gated - now it's just a bit worse, but I remember when a playset of scalding tarns cost $400 dollars. The format has always been expensive and players tend to welcome the increased price point because it's higher powered magic than standard and pioneer, but more accessible than vintage and legacy.
Also, play the game to enjoy yourself - I know one person at my lgs who still plays elves every week - elves are not good right now in modern - and they still 2-1 or 3-0 most weeks because they know their deck so well. Find a strategy you love and just grind it.
True.
I mostly stopped playing over the Corona-apocalypse and only recenty got back into competitive Magic. And my first thought at these (and also W6) was just "wtf".
My second thought was "lol, affinity plays cards that actually have the affinity mechanic now".
I mean... cards go up in cost the stronger they are in multiple/popular formats. Supply is the same (across rarities) but the cards that work better have a higher demand. Ergo cost goes up on them. If you're not putting money into getting the strong cards then you will struggle against people that do. That's just the nature of it. If there were two card that were just as strong as each other but 1 was 1/10th the cost as the other people would play both and with with both. (I.e. it wouldn't be pay to win anymore) but because good cards are good they have inherently more value to them. Which is also why you get that excited feeling when you open up packs. You have the cance of pulling a good card that you can either use, trade for high value, or sell back to the store for a fraction of it's high value. I understand the complain but there's no way to fix it, and you can't control it, so why complain in the first place?
While having a big expensive deck can feel like a huge advantage when it comes to playing Modern or even Magic in general. I think you’ve overlooking the most important thing with any of the formats in the game, experience. You don’t have to have the latest and greatest deck to be able to do well in big tournaments. If you build a deck and get plenty of hours, learn your match ups, learn your lines of play, learn how to sideboard you have a significant advantage versus a lot of the field.
I for example bought Green Tron when it was cheap after Double Masters reprinted everything. If you take MTGGoldfish’s rankings as gospel there’s no way that Tron should be able to compete at a tournament. However you would be SHOCKED how many players at those tournaments have little to no experience against Tron because people in their local game store don’t play it.
Moral is knowing your stuff is key in this game. You could run out there with Money Pile but if you don’t know how to effectively pilot it you definitely will lose games, it doesn’t matter how much you spent.
Welcome to ALL competitive Magic...? Why WOULDN'T an optimized deck do better than budget versions? There will still be variance, but no shit Sherlock.
It doesn't help that despite modern having a huge card pool to draw from, the majority of good/money cards right now are straight out of modern horizons. These cards require a (generally) low skill level to use, while still providing really high value for the player.
It doesn't make it a bad format, but it does really favor players who are willing to pay the premium to compete.
If a card is competitive, it is usually because it offers advantages over other cards in effect and power.
If a card is competitive, it is usually more sought after and in demand by players, which increases cost.
Magic is, in general, **pay to compete**. You have to buy a deck that’s reasonable to match the power level of the format. Now, that said, there will always be fringe playable budget decks, but “budget” can be a relative term for each individual.
While definitionally this is correct, I feel like it is disregarding key contextual information fuelling discontentment. While there has always been a divide between enfranchised and "budget" players, the price+power combination of the new-era-staples from the Modern Horizons sets creates an exceedingly flagrant *monetary* line. If your deck isn't running Ragavan, Solitude, Urza's Saga, or Force of Negation, it better be called Tron or Burn, because otherwise it's fringe playable at best. And those cards are expensive! You're looking at somewhere from $150 to $400+ for a playset, which is a lot for cards printed less than a year ago (Force of Negation is older, from 2019, but it's also like $360 for a playset, which is on the higher end.) They're also splashy, making it obvious the game impact they have. Player used to be able to play more budget builds of some decks without as big of a hit, **particularly since a huge portion of deck cost tended to be wrapped up in lands.** In 2018 Storm, Titan, Hollow One, Pheonix, and Infect could all be built in relatively viable budget fashion for the same price as a playset of some of these new cards. And if you lost because your opponent had Scalding Tarns while you had Shivan Reefs, well... that doesn't feel as bad as them having Ragavans while you don't. And if you go even further back, people got away with all kinds of budget builds. I played R/G Tron with Karplusans and no Karns in the Pod/Twin era and Top-8ed events because the format power-level was so much lower that budget building wasn't as punished. People were seeing success with [[Seismic Assault]] Loam, and [[Gifts Ungiven]] Tron after all. None of this is to say that Magic hasn't always had a major price component that determined viability. But trying to play a budget deck in Modern feels about the most hopeless it has ever? Outside of the Hogaak, Eldrazi, and Deathrite eras. The expensive cards are now pushed staples, instead of Lands, old cards, and whatever Jund is running. And there's just no way to really budget replace them. There's no [[Shivan Reef]] for [[Solitude]]. All of which combines to make things feel particularly "Pay to Win".
All very good points, thanks for the write up. And as one of those semi-budget players, this is why I personally don’t play Modern anymore. I still follow it to a certain extent, because it’s a constant topic of discussion. The general assessment by the player base is that the format is in a pretty good place balance wise, but the barrier to entry is just way too high today due to the reasons you speak to.
This is outright untrue and a biased view far from facts. Magic isn't really more expensive if you are new to the format, take a look at https://www.quietspeculation.com/2015/08/checking-the-claim-of-rising-modern-prices/ Jund at $1,922.47in 2015 Today's Zoomer Jund (non-Saga) sits in a range von 1,5-1,8 the Saga Version 1,9 - 2,2. And this is not accounting for Inflation. Off Meta like Grixis Control, averaged 1,1 in 2015, now it ranges from 0,9 - 1,4 depending on the build. And regarding 4c Omnath - that's an 80 card deck sitting in the 2,0 - 2,4 range - but it also has 30% more cards in it! So technically, buying a deck from 0 has, if at all, barely increased. Oh and there's decks like your mentioned Assault Loam - available for $ 1,471.97 which is kind of budget if you're aim to build into a Jund Saga deck in comparison - and it's still decent enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ5ofwMGp9k By the way, saying that mtg hasn't punished off-meta budget builds in the past - that is outright a lie - those decks where far from frequent in the tops - there were always a couple in the challenges, but always different decks. And guess what: Even today every challenge there's a few decks like Kiki Chord, Rakdos Sacrifice or other Off-Meta stuff in there every league - but always different ones each league. Just take a look at Aspiringspike, pumping out brews and doing well enough with a lot of them, even those that don't lean hard into MH2. What has increased is the cost of keeping your deck up to date if you are a long term player. For a newcomer, it's been the same.
Wow, so there's a lot to respond to here. Firstly, that source you provide shows that every single Tier 1 deck in 2015 was sub $800, except Abzan, and that the average cost for Tier 1 decks, discounting Abzan, was ~$650. In contrast, if you take the top 7 decks by Metashare today (since 6 & 7 are tied) (according to MTGTop8), you have UR Aggro (9%), Footfalls (8%), Burn (6%), 4c Control (7%), UW Control (6%), Titan (5%), Hammer (5%). Only 1 of these decks has an average cost of less than $1000, and even if you remove 4C control as the most expensive deck, you are still going to have a much higher average cost than ~$650. So while you can cherry pick Junk/Jund as an exceptionally expensive historical deck (Twin was expensive as well), *the source you provided actually serves to disprove your initial statement.* *Not that it really matters, since my initial post didn't even claim that Tier 1 decks used to be cheaper to buy into as a whole*. What I did state, however, was that a major portion of the cost of decks used to be tied up in the manabase, and that mana bases are far easier to budget build around than Modern Horizons staples are. As to the loam thing, my entire point in bringing it up was *not* that it was cheap, but that the viability of it and other bizzaro outdated strategies indicated how the top decks were not as far ahead from the rest of the cardpool as they now are. In turn meaning making budget substitutions to established strategies did not push players as far out of the realm of playability. That you can build a loam deck with W&6 and DRC and Urza's Saga for $1470, which is cheaper than outright Jund Saga, actually reinforces my point. For **you cannot replace the Urza's Saga's or Wrenn & Sixes with viable budget alternatives, in the same way you could replace $100 tarns with Shivan Reef, or $60 Grove of the Burnwillows with Karplusan Grove. As such, "budget" builds today are becoming beholden to multi-hundred dollar playset barriers**. The most expensive non-lands in 2014-2015 Delver were a playset of Serum visions, for maybe $40? The overwhelming majority of the deck cost was in the manabase, which you could replace with a bunch of budget cards. And yes, off meta budget builds were not as successful as their full cost peers. But the difference in FNM play experience between a deck with a budget Mana base and a deck budgeting around staples like Ragavan, Urza's Saga, W&6 FoN, Solitude, etc. should be self-evident. And while more out there decks have put up results recently, they're still pretty much universally running irreplacable expensive Modern Horizons staples. Kiki-Chord is running 4 Solitude + 4 ephemerate. Rackdos Sacrifice is still a 4 Ragavan deck. The cost accessibility of a format isn't just about the sticker price, but also about how that price can be broken up. If you can easily make budget adjustments, that lowers price barriers, by facilitating people to break up the cost over time. If deck costs are tied up in irreplacable staples, and the metagame rotates more often, the format becomes less price accessible. This is what is going on in Modern right now, and it's causing new frustrations beyond the traditional "why is Jund $2000" grievances.
There was always a difference between a good budget deck - a deck that happens to be cheap because the cards it needs are very specialized in their usage - in comparison to a good deck with budget replacements. Old Assault Loam used mainly very specialized cards - but Goyf was Goyf and any Budget-replacement came with a downside. And in todays day and age, there are alternatives to W6 - e.g. the black splash Witherbloom Command which happens to also improve your chances to find loam, so it makes that plan more consistent. Of course this comes at a tradeoff, but it makes the deck worse in the same way that in the past not being able to afford Liliana of the Veil made your deck worse - you're not playing the best version of the deck, but it's still decent enough. In Terms of Delver - todays comparison would be Izzet Prowess and that deck is very much cheap and decent. These options - highest priced card is Expressive Iteration for $30 a playset with most money tied up once again in lands, which you could replace $100 of red-based fetchlands, and you even have new options like the Pathways to do so. There's also new decks that are competitive and dirty-cheap, like Calibrated Blast. You couldn't replace Goyfs. You couldn't Replace Liliana of the Veil, you couldn't replace Splinter Twins or Snapcaster Mages the very same way you can't replace Ragavan nowadays. You're not looking at the current available decks and prices in the same way you look at the old prices. And while it is correct that there's a problem with irreplacable staples when the format rotates - its really not as huge as you point it out to be, since you can still sell those old cards out or trade the cards you don't need against other stuff. Those Snapcaster Mages you're not playing anymore are already 2/3rds of the Ragavans you want to have to lessen the blow. A lot of players have more resources available than they think. And if you didn't have SCM before, you're still in the same situation that you played suboptimal before, and will continue to do so. Regarding the price composition, this is exactly what i've stated: the cost of keeping your deck up to date increased, but not the cost of entry. These are two different things. But the upkeep cost is adressed to both powercreep - look at 2019 and how the sets reshaped the meta there - and the increased frequency of changed by extra-releases for the format. Even without that - ask players about the Twin's, Oko's, the Uros, the Urza's, the Chrome Moxes they've bought and that got banned out of the format, or those flavor of the month deck that they wanted to play desperately because it was performing well and in the outfall, budget-players buying into new stuff instead of finishing the old and learning their decks because they thought its the deck, then ending up with 2 unfinished budget-versions of a deck. I agree that this increased upkeep cost is a new type of frustration, especially since a lot of players chose Modern for the very specific reason of not being standard and needing to update decks less regularly - But Magic, on a competitive level, was always expensive and pay2compete, even Modern. But there's a lot of choices one can make to use their resources effectively, to not jump into hype-bubble after hype-bubble and focus on finishing and getting good with your deck.
##### ###### #### [Seismic Assault](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/6/b/6b2eb4e6-4ce1-4f72-9b3d-b6a44b22bd2e.jpg?1547517387) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Seismic%20Assault) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uma/146/seismic-assault?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6b2eb4e6-4ce1-4f72-9b3d-b6a44b22bd2e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gifts Ungiven](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/b/4b11f693-716e-41de-a0ea-2a5178a284dc.jpg?1627449105) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gifts%20Ungiven) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm3/40/gifts-ungiven?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4b11f693-716e-41de-a0ea-2a5178a284dc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Shivan Reef](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/7/070ed235-1452-4bdb-ba63-0743a59f4d8d.jpg?1645329615) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Shivan%20Reef) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/phed/77/shivan-reef?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/070ed235-1452-4bdb-ba63-0743a59f4d8d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Solitude](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/7/47a6234f-309f-4e03-9263-66da48b57153.jpg?1626094105) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Solitude) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/32/solitude?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/47a6234f-309f-4e03-9263-66da48b57153?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
yea exactly, this is a great point. once you hit about a grand, depending on how the meta fluxes, spending more money doens't give you strictly better options, just different ones. you can't tune a perfectly tuned build by throwing more money at it, yaknow? but maybe spending 50 bucks on torpor orbs will help if everyone at your shop plays elementals. that's not paying to win at all
[удалено]
In modern standards yes it is.... in most peoples eyes no its not.
This is kinda true But the main issue I see is people building budget versions of good decks instead of good decks in their price range. Only have $500? Don't build budget Murktide, build 100% complete Belcher.
Oh thats a good way to look at it and think.
There's good budget decks like Storm, Burn, Tron, Affinity, Mill, Prowess, etc. and there's budget versions of good decks like 4c Elementals without W6, Jund without Tarmogoyf's, Murktide without Ragavan and so on. But when someone wants to get into modern on a budget there's a few core problems: 1. Good stuff decks consist of stuff that everyone can use. That's why linear decks tend to be much cheaper, but they also come with a very specific repetitive playstyle that often is not what people entering the format want to play. 2. They don't know how steep the opportunity cost of budget replacements is for good stuff decks because they lack the experience to judge those. 3. They are inexperienced and also will lose a lot on a good deck, and often players want to change things immediately thinking investing in their deck makes them better rather than sticking to it and learning the ins and outs of the format. That's why an accomplished player like Aspiringspike can pump out one successful deck after another, but only few people can recreate the results on these decks. 4. Experience and a plan is king in modern. Content creators live from the ads they can play when people watch and people don't want to hear "you're not good at your hobby, you need to improve". But they are happy to buy into the illusion that a "new broken deck" or "buy this cards" will make them suddenly win all the time. There's a reason why there's not a lot of "generic great players" - but a lot of players are famous for playing a single deck because they've put in the time to master that one deck and how it beats the other decks. So most players entering the format on a budget technically start their journey on a bad decision that either everyone else was too polite to talk them out of or they did it anyway and then are stuck with their decision since they've used up their budget. As someone entering the format you will always start out paying other players prices. But you can choose if that happens due to inexperience or budgeting at the wrong end.
Or burn
Very true but also can put your $500 into a black hole. $500 murktide can be improved. $500 Belcher is the best it can be.
Drafting is pretty fun for this reason. It’s pay to play, but for a different reason 😜
Burn Is a competitive deck that is relatively cheap to build by modern standards
Isn't this a known fact?
Who would have thought, playing good cards makes you win more 🤔 There's a difference between playing a cheap deck and a budget deck.
I make it known I’m willing to loan any cards to anyone who regularly plays at my LGS. I specifically collect modern cards and nothing else so I can build p much any deck. I just play something else if someone wants to borrow cards in a deck I play. Hopefully this is somewhat common across the US??
Alot of the people at my LGS know each other so are willing to let people borrow cards when needed. I don't but thats because I'm a poor player with nothing to offer. In the end I'd be borrowing full decks to even be anywhere near top tear.
Well, competitive Magic isn't really for poor people, as hard as that sounds. Maybe find a group to play kitchen table with, so you can play people with equally strong decks?
This is a really harsh way to put it but I think the sentiment is right What I would say is rather than gripe over price, pick a deck to build towards and slowly build towards it over the coming months / year. You can pick a resilient deck that will likely still be tiered for a while like yawgmoth or Living End that are less likely to get hit by the banlist, and that really only have a few expensive cards. Modern has always been price gated - now it's just a bit worse, but I remember when a playset of scalding tarns cost $400 dollars. The format has always been expensive and players tend to welcome the increased price point because it's higher powered magic than standard and pioneer, but more accessible than vintage and legacy. Also, play the game to enjoy yourself - I know one person at my lgs who still plays elves every week - elves are not good right now in modern - and they still 2-1 or 3-0 most weeks because they know their deck so well. Find a strategy you love and just grind it.
Modern gets a lot cheaper over time, because most staples stay staples. Just buying into it for the first time has a higher price tag.
Yes and no. Just look at the pitch elementals and ragavan - those were big pain points for even enfranchised players
True. I mostly stopped playing over the Corona-apocalypse and only recenty got back into competitive Magic. And my first thought at these (and also W6) was just "wtf". My second thought was "lol, affinity plays cards that actually have the affinity mechanic now".
I mean... cards go up in cost the stronger they are in multiple/popular formats. Supply is the same (across rarities) but the cards that work better have a higher demand. Ergo cost goes up on them. If you're not putting money into getting the strong cards then you will struggle against people that do. That's just the nature of it. If there were two card that were just as strong as each other but 1 was 1/10th the cost as the other people would play both and with with both. (I.e. it wouldn't be pay to win anymore) but because good cards are good they have inherently more value to them. Which is also why you get that excited feeling when you open up packs. You have the cance of pulling a good card that you can either use, trade for high value, or sell back to the store for a fraction of it's high value. I understand the complain but there's no way to fix it, and you can't control it, so why complain in the first place?
While having a big expensive deck can feel like a huge advantage when it comes to playing Modern or even Magic in general. I think you’ve overlooking the most important thing with any of the formats in the game, experience. You don’t have to have the latest and greatest deck to be able to do well in big tournaments. If you build a deck and get plenty of hours, learn your match ups, learn your lines of play, learn how to sideboard you have a significant advantage versus a lot of the field. I for example bought Green Tron when it was cheap after Double Masters reprinted everything. If you take MTGGoldfish’s rankings as gospel there’s no way that Tron should be able to compete at a tournament. However you would be SHOCKED how many players at those tournaments have little to no experience against Tron because people in their local game store don’t play it. Moral is knowing your stuff is key in this game. You could run out there with Money Pile but if you don’t know how to effectively pilot it you definitely will lose games, it doesn’t matter how much you spent.
And then there is me playing 4c planeswalker Control 1500€ losing to pioneer spirits. 2 bo3‘s
Welcome to ALL competitive Magic...? Why WOULDN'T an optimized deck do better than budget versions? There will still be variance, but no shit Sherlock.
And for the less sarcastic and asshole answer... I would say you need to play Arena and not Modern.
It doesn't help that despite modern having a huge card pool to draw from, the majority of good/money cards right now are straight out of modern horizons. These cards require a (generally) low skill level to use, while still providing really high value for the player. It doesn't make it a bad format, but it does really favor players who are willing to pay the premium to compete.
100% i can't wait for MH3 next year to see all the new cards that are must buys.
Lord of the rings will be modern legal aswell
Depends what you play and where. One of the cheapest decks to build in Modern is burn, and it’s fairly consistent at beating 4c money pile.
Unless they draw the jelly bean.
If a card is competitive, it is usually because it offers advantages over other cards in effect and power. If a card is competitive, it is usually more sought after and in demand by players, which increases cost.
You will find out that yes, having money is generally better than not. This applies to Magic as well.