Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I kept a 3-color sliver deck, a black/white split color deck and a goblin deck, and trashed (sold) all my other cards. These decks all stand up to most of the current decks, and usually thump at casual games, but they all had something in common-I got the cards cheaply. Trading, quarters/$1 per card, boosters. That was it. It can be done cheaply, but it's hard. Typically, you have to have an equal balance of skill and money to do well. A crappy player will lose with awesome cards, a skilled player will lose with horrible cards (short of luck).

Leigen_Zero wrote:This is going to sound unusual, and will probably be instantly debunked by those more experienced with the game, but I've always thought that with games like MtG where victory relies heavily on deck composition, it should be possible to accurately predict the winner algorithmically, based on a truly random shuffle and probability of cards being drawn based on their numbers relative to deck size. (admittedly we must assume that both players are playing to the best of their ability)

There is truth to your statement, but not exactly what I feel you're thinking. As someone who plays magic primarily over 40k, I find that Magic metagames will always end up finding themselves in a rock-paper-scissors setup with the best 3-4 decks. Some decks will beat the crap out of others but die horribly to others. Basically, what this creates is a pre-tournament strategy where you have to predict the trends of the other players as a whole and guess what you'll see the most and game against that. Then you pray you don't go against your counter.

But a skilled player doesn't care as much about the anti-thesis to their decks because they'll figure out how to survive long enough to pull out a win.

As for the pay-to-win argument, that holds true in eternal formats, but not so much in rotating formats. Legacy and Modern are formats where you HAVE to have good cards to have a chance. Your casual "combo" deck doesn't stand a chance when Charbelcher or Ad-Nauseum decides they want to end the game. But when two legitimate legacy decks are pitted against each other, the game is actually quite exciting and fun to play. The counter argument is that legacy and modern cards are usually a one time expense as they'll more likely be in format forever. Standard, the most popular constructed format, is a different beast. Basically, people will always gravitate to the decks that are winning the tournaments and with one major standard tournament every weekend, people have an idea what does well. It's been a while since a pauper deck has done well in standard but it is very possible.

But if you want cheap formats to play? Limited is the best. As mentioned earlier, drafting is the best. I personally prefer booster unless I can play with a proven cube. (They're too easy to "unbalance" if not done right) but sealed is just as good. Drafting is great because it's 90% skill and 10% luck, where the winner could very well be decided by the quality of the cards chosen in your pool. But you'll only know that when you put them to use. Sealed gets a lot of flak because of it's "randomness" of pools, but I feel it is a greater test of skill, as you have to do the best with what you've got, regardless of the quality. Day 2 of limited GPs will always separate the men from the boys though, people open silly pools day one and ride it into the day 2 draft only to get curb stomped by the legitimately good players.

 daedalus wrote:
designed to be an eternal arms race.

I like that term, I think I'll be using it in the future.

The only way I can enjoy mtg is sealed tournies and using strictly starter decks. My main deck is lackluster compared to what people have been working on for years and years.

Got's to step into this Bros. Been playing magic since Stronghold or older, some confusion in our group on that one. I have, and do, play Competitively, and Casually, thank you very much. And I assure you, with a large group behind me on this, both do exist simultaneously. When I play competitive these days it's only in any Limited format, mainly Draft, occasionally Sealed. Worth note there is only one FLGS in the entire county I will play at. Because that's the only one where the players aren't "Mag-dicks".

We have an assortment of swell guys and a few gals even who have more fun exploring the game on their own then copying others decks off the net. The drafts are always amusing with strange concepts being worked out to try new themes and variations while a few go with the status quo 'good draft cards'. Which player does what rotates week to week, meaning everyone has a chance to win-and at some point usually has won-while the person who won last week screws around with something new. (like me drafting Dimir Defender Mill, or Orzhov Enchanter during the pre-release of Return, ah good times surprising people. You all know what I'm talking about here I trust.) This is held in check partly by plain old good men watching over the younger/newer players and teaching them the games complexities or peering over shoulders to make sure trades are equitable in value. This stewardship hedges out the hyper competitive "Ma-Jerks" and perpetuates its own cycle. Follow up FNM with a EDH/Commander till four in the morning at a restaurant and POOF, back in casual land. Or Block Constructed, or League, or Pauper.

Yes, this "pay to win" is a prevalent force to be reckoned with. But what everyone forgets is SOMEONE had to come up with the decklist, or the synergy, or the combo, long before many knew what it was and show it to you, so you knew what the bleep to buy. THAT person is the driving force in the evolution of the meta. With out the drive, nay, the ability to create the new concept that will carve a niche out of a format, your just another sheep in the herd, trying desperately to mimic some other players skill that you may or may not ever understand, just because you built the same deck. Believe me, I've been there, and came through that to get to where I am. Here's an original thought, go get an original thought of your own!

ahem, No offence, of course

One final note. As I remember it, there was a pro player a while back who top-eighted a Pro Tour Qualifier with a Standard deck of all commons.

I've only been playing a couple of months. It is a buisness and Wizards have been making a living off of MTG for years, it's pay to win there's no question of that but ............................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................................... ................................................................................... ............................................................................................................... Who cares? go play with the cards ya got and have some fun, the other night I played in a two headed Giant game with a random stranger as a partner and we had a blast, We lost every game but one... We didn't care because we were having fun, go play enjoy just don't get tied up on the winning.

It can be pay to win. But as Bro-Mullet pointed out, it is also casual. Just wanted to clear that up.