The cost of playing magic
Economics forum
Posted on Oct. 7, 2013, 1:20 p.m. by SharuumNyan
I'm increasingly hearing comments, online and at the LGS, that sound like this.
"I want to play standard, and I want to win, but I don't want to spend more than $50 on my deck."
or
"Expecting magic players to spend hundreds of dollars on a deck isn't fair to people who don't have that much extra income."
or
"You only beat me because you can afford that playset of Voice of Resurgence and I can't!"
What do you say to people, especially those who are new to Magic, when they make comments like this? I don't want to alienate anyone from the game, but at the same time I'm getting a little annoyed with people who believe that they're entitled to be competitive without paying for a competitive deck. Some of them are total jerks about it.
I have no extra income or any for that matter, as I am in between jobs..... yet I still get some great cards through TRADING! that's how I did my "One-Eyed Blistered Electrosniper" izzet deck... I traded with people to get what I needed. not just on here, but also IRL...
October 7, 2013 1:29 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #4
Everytime I hear somebody make a complaint like this I remember going to Mirrodin Beseiged game day with my two buddies. The first guy has been playing off and on since 95, the second guy started about Zendikar bought a box then found it to be too expensive to keep up.
Anyway, guy two borrows guy one's Grixis Superfriends control deck for the tourny and gets obliterated... It just shows that weaker players can lose with good cards/decks just as easily as they lose with bad ones. Don't blame the cards, maybe they're just cheesed for losing to a girl.
October 7, 2013 1:36 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #5
Yeah, Nick, Casual Strategist, trading is the best solution, but many of these people are new and don't have anything to trade with. They should really just play limited for a while, but they want to dive straight into constructed.
And yes, xlaleclx, in some cases they do play bad and blame it on the deck. That's when you offer to switch decks after the match and beat your own deck with their budget deck. That's the best reality check you can give them! lol
But the fact is, this game involves a large financial commitment to be competitive - whether you already have a stack of decent cards to trade, or if you're buying singles, you had to spend that money at some point. And it's no different than any other hobby. People who play sports also invest tons of money into the best equipment.
October 7, 2013 1:40 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #6
You don't need to have a infinite budget to do well in magic, but it would make it easier. There is a reason why some cards are more expensive, but that's not to say a budget deck couldn't do well, nor that you can't get good cards on a budget. (There's a large opportunity to be had with buying cheap cards that can/will be good in the right decks).
October 7, 2013 1:40 p.m.
Fleetfiend says... #7
xlaleclx, I totally agree with you; those are the people that bother me. I'm one of the people that doesn't have much disposable income, being a college student with a single parent making 12k a year, but I make due with what I have and try to make good decks that are as cheap as possible. It's not the fault of other people with thicker wallets when I lose. xD I'm more likely to blame it on bad luck than bad income.
October 7, 2013 1:43 p.m.
RickyHoeppner says... #8
I have always looked at it like this:
Expensive cards are expensive because anyone can easily win with them. There are those cheap cards that are only good to the ones who put in enough thought to make them good. Voice, for example. Doesnt require much thought. Put him down, he is good by himself. Then look at a card like Hidden Strings . You can get a playset for less than a dollar, and you can do amazing things with that card. Its just about how much thought you put into it.
October 7, 2013 1:46 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
I'm divided on the issue. While it's definitely possible to play fun decks for less money, many competitive formats require access to certain kinds of cards if you want to be successful.
I have a problem with new players who think they are entitled to be competitive without spending any money and without having any experience. If you don't want to get certain format staples, you don't have a right to complain about how the lack of format staples is detrimental to your ability to play competitively. If you can't get format staples (usually because you legitimately don't have the spare cash), then you need to accept that you will be at a disadvantage. I would still rather see the latter group attempt to work around their disadvantage by using other cards, but acceptance of your situation is still critical to being a good player.
Also, as several of you have pointed out, money isn't the only factor here. Results are based on decks, but they're also based on player skill and experience.
If you don't want to see newer players dissuaded by the barrier to entry to competitive play, remind them that it's best to start slow. Your skill as a player will grow, and your collection will grow with you. You'll also have much more fun that way. Many of the players who jump right into competitive play as soon as they start will end up burning out on the game and probably not enjoying it very much.
October 7, 2013 1:46 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #10
@MindAblaze! - yep, it's amazing how some guys sit down at the table assuming they're going to beat me because I'm a girl. I've also noticed a lot of new players who need a little help will call a judge rather than taking my advice, but if they're playing with another dude they just listen to the opponent.
That extra X chromosome can really put people on tilt. lol
October 7, 2013 1:48 p.m.
playing a girl isn't an issue for me.... whenever my wife plays, she wins just as much as I do.... so it's twice the fun....
October 7, 2013 1:54 p.m.
notamardybum says... #12
Tell them to play mono-red then. its competative and cheap.
October 7, 2013 2:18 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #13
Being truly competitive at any collectible game takes a combination of time and money, and that reality is impossible to avoid. If you're lacking in one of them then you have to fill the gap with more of the other. Sometimes you can ease the pain through innovative deckbuilding or pooling resources with friends and acquaintances, but that doesn't change either of the core factors.
The money I spend on the game tends to be evenly spread out over the course of a year, and 99.99% of what I get will never be sold to earn back money. It will either be put directly into an existing casual deck (getting close to 40 now) or go into the collection to be used or traded (for more cards, of course) at a later date. The "time" part of the equation has given me a pretty deep stash of trade fodder that is really good at helping me get what I want whenever I decide to play some Standard for a while.
It's important to note that a great many competitive players might only have 1 deck to their name at a time, period. They probably only dropped a truly big chunk of change one time to finish their very first Standard deck, and since then have supplemented new purchases by trading away or selling pieces of a previous deck to build a new one. The heavy initial investment gave them a break on the time element, and it continues to help them out as more time passes.
October 7, 2013 3:34 p.m.
If they are new to magic, suggest Limited formats. The points you should hit are: They get the chance to build a collection/trade material, they get more practice playing magic and figuring out which cards are good, and they are less likely to face multiple mythics at the same time. Another good thing (for me at least) is not getting stomped turn 3 with the deck that you always win with at your kitchen table, but that is more likely to cause fights. If they really want to stick with Standard, offer to show them your deck and look at theirs, so you can offer suggestions. Maybe they run a bunch of 2- and 1-ofs. Maybe they're mana curve is horrible. Maybe they just don't have the landbase. Tell them why those are problems, and make some suggestions about what would make for a better deck.
As for the price thing, I can understand that. Sure, you can make competitive decks for relatively cheap, but those are usually very limiting (mono-red burn doesn't really have that many variations) and a lot of people want to be creative with Magic decks. More to the point, not everyone who plays Magic can justify spending 100+ dollars at once, and its hard to build up slowly in Standard given how much the meta changes.
With people who are being jerks, put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Imagine what would cause you to do what they are doing. Would you start being a little less friendly if you had lost 0-4 the last 2 FNMs? The last 3? 4? One of the problems humans have is that we excuse our own failures, mistakes, and bad actions, but not others. When someone else cuts you off in traffic, they're a jerk. When you cut someone else off, its because you had to be at a big meeting and were already 5 minutes late.
October 7, 2013 3:42 p.m.
HarbingerJK says... #15
tell them they can spend $1000 dollars on a deck, but that alone doesn't make the deck any good.
October 7, 2013 4:10 p.m.
i went 4-1 one week at fnm with 4 color slivers, and granted i had hundreds of dollars worth of lands, the rest of the deck was fairly cheap every card minus land and domris were under $3, or building the epic experiement for about $30
playing something new and unexpected built with cheaper cards can give surprising results because its one of those things that people dont know how to play against, or around, which works on occasion for me trying fun decks and ties into, time & money, add more time if you dont have money
one guy around here built a top tear deck, and just gets store credit anytime he wins anything, saing up for cards he needs when the next top tier deck comes around, but his trade binder is 1/2 empty, and 1/4 foil commons and uncommons, wth less than 20 rares, and few of any note, others can buy a case for prerelease and trade for what they dont pull
October 7, 2013 4:24 p.m.
please note that legacy decks cost that much due to the land used. I'm in the process of buying/building esper deathblade, and in the spells, it's cost me about 1000$ dollars, that includes 3x jtms and 4x fow, the lands cost around 1500$ for it. the ONS fetches and ABUR lands with U are wallet breakers.
October 7, 2013 4:28 p.m.
yeah lands are expensive, but the spells arnt always cheap,
goyfs are $150 each which is almost 2 bayous
i started moving back to legacy and modern since i was sick of losing 'value' of my cards
October 7, 2013 4:31 p.m.
Being bad at the game isn't an excuse for being rude... The problem with most new/bad players is that there are a ton of cheap alternatives for the cards that they're using but they refuse to change their deck/pile of singleton bulk rares
October 7, 2013 5:57 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #21
I think that Standard is the most immediately doable format in terms of finances... with the one problem of having to acquire new cards once a year, which potentially makes it the most expensive format over time.
I like the idea of eternal formats because your investment is your investment and it won't change for the most part. But, because I found Legacy and Vintage to be blergh when it came to metas, I went to Modern, which also has a good chance of having one big investment and then being done.
Shopping around for cards helps a lot too bee tee dubs. I'm a huge proponent of checking out multiple sources to find what you're looking for, because you'll often pay a lot of money for the sake of convenience.
October 7, 2013 6:05 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #22
Also, it's possible to build a deck that works on a budget. The hilarious part is that people say it's not possible.... I'm pretty sure I spent about $40 on my old Trolling With Young Pyro Budget (LAST CHANCE!) deck and it wasn't uncommon for it to go 3-1 or 4-0 at FNM. Hell, I put together a mono-red aggro deck for a friend that was made out of commons and uncommons that crushed $500 decks.
October 7, 2013 6:12 p.m.
I make comments almost similar to those in the original post all the time - but I frame it with a bit more positivism and a bit less entitlement
"I choose to play EDH only because I don't want to spend the money to keep up with standard"
Because with standard, even if you play red deck wins - you must still continuously buy new cards as old ones cycle out. EDH is a better investment in that sense. Also, in EDH, the socio-political factors can trump everything including budget - which makes it a viable format to play in and enjoy with both limits on time and money simultaneously. It's just a more budget-friendly format in general and it allows people who are on a restricted budget who love the game to stay in it so that they can more easily jump into standard again when a better time of life rolls around in terms of time and money resources. Because with EDH, there is still a reason to buy a few cards from the new expansions each year - but that's a few cards - not boxes and event entry fees and packs ... etc. etc. ... and all the old stuff I had bought years ago is still good - cards retain value more in EDH.
Of course - if you want to consistently be that last one standing / king of the mountain winner of an EDH multiplayer match - then it helps to have both time and money ... but if you just want to play and have fun and finish somewhere in the middle of the pack - it can be managed more easily than in standard.
October 7, 2013 6:15 p.m.
I think that if you work hard and playtest enough, you can make a good deck without spending $100. Money helps, but time and good research are decent substitutions. Plus budget decks have the added bonus of usually being unexpected, while more expensive decks are usually more mainstream, which means that the meta isn't prepared for you.
October 7, 2013 6:36 p.m.
I agree with twospires ... and sometimes it is a mixed bag when they weren't prepared for you!
But while I am cheap on cash spent on cards - I have put in some serious time with playtesting and deckbuilding - when I had it available (i.e. summer vacation) so then during the school year I can kind of ride things out and watch out for those cards I will eventually pick up closer to the summer. EDH lets you have those down times more easily than standard.
October 7, 2013 6:42 p.m.
But all that nice stuff about getting around spending money is kind of useless. Yes. You will have to spend money on Magic. You can reduce how much money you spend (significantly), but in the end, you'll still have to fork over dough in order to play the game.
October 7, 2013 6:55 p.m.
Yes - this is true. I invested money in having 12 decks to choose from. Yes, each one of them is around $50 - but overall there is an investment of money involved that can't be avoided.
But it can be managed in terms of its long-term value and the cost required to maintain that value.
Which is another point - tokens, sleeves, counters, sleeves, deck boxes, sleeves, playmats, and sleeves ... that adds up too. And if you are interested in capturing that longer-term value from playing EDH - it is worthless unless you pay up to keep those cards you have in playable condition.
October 7, 2013 7:08 p.m.
twospires hit the nail on the head. Playing a tier two deck often gives you the advantage of not having to worry about what comes out of your opponent's sideboard. While you won't win as consistently as something tier one, it can give you the upper hand to make top 8s and win prizes at FNMs, Standard Dailies, or other events.
The thing people often don't realize is why certain cards are chosen for a deck and what role those cards play. One recent example that comes to mind is Esper Control. People who are newer and playing on a budget don't understand how crucial Sphinx's Revelation and Supreme Verdict are for the deck, and instead try and swap them out for "budget versions." Then they fail and blame their opponent for having a larger budget.
The correct solution is to play a cheaper deck until you can get the pieces for the deck you want to play. Yes, it might mean grinding out a few weeks of FNMs with RDW or Maze's End, but you can eventually get to the point where you can build any deck you want. Just this past year, I played Junk Zombies for almost nine months. Then I was able to win enough boosters and store credit from FNMs and other tournaments to build G/B Control and Junk Midrange.
October 7, 2013 7:34 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #29
You are looking at it wrong RickyHoeppner, expensive cards are good in the way in they consistently benefit the deck(s) that play them, this can mean they are good by themselves, or that they are good in combination with other cards.
A card like Hidden Strings is only situationally useful and never by itself. Furthermore it doesn't fit into any current staple deck archetype. That's why they are inexpensive. (also it is common).
For example Supreme Verdict isn't good by itself, however if you are using a control archetype, that wins through card advantage, waiting for win conditions by controlling the board state, then it's suddenly very useful, and therefore more likely to be an expensive card.
October 7, 2013 8:07 p.m.
sylvannos is on to something. You can't just swap out expensive cards for cheaper cards that do "sort of the same thing," especially when the deck relies heavily on that card. There's just so substitute for Sphinx's Revelation . Either use that card, or make a different deck focused on cheaper cards. A budget deck is NOT a tier one deck with cheaper replacements, it's a different deck entirely.
October 7, 2013 8:11 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #31
I agree. You cannot make a tier one deck with cheap subs. I remember people at my LGS complaining about their Esper or American control decks that were using Archaeomancer instead of Snapcaster Mage . You can't use cards that do "sort of" the same thing to fill a very specific roll that another card filled.
October 7, 2013 8:18 p.m.
Going to play Devil's Advocate here... @fluffybunnypants I wouldn't say you can't use the cards that do similar things... you can... sure you will never be as effective as what the cheaper subsitutes are filling in for, but that doesn't mean you can't use them.... As your example proves, an Archaeomancer will never be as good as a Snapcaster Mage .
October 7, 2013 8:21 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #33
Okay, okay, fine, Nick, Casual Strategist, you've got me on semantics. But you're basically saying you could run naked through poison ivy. I'm saying it's a terrible idea.
October 7, 2013 8:25 p.m.
Archaeomancer will never be able to pump out as many cheap instants in a single turn as Snapcaster Mage - but it still has its purpose and niche - it can pull a counterspell back into your hand to be played any turn you feel comfortable and are able to play it. Archaeomancer is also bounceable for the purpose of combos (that would mostly be fun to play in EDH - not necessarily competitive in standard) (i.e. use it to pull back Silence in a flicker deck over and over).
I guess the point is that while I agree that Archaeomancer can't do what Snapcaster Mage does in standard - this "cheap substitute" can do useful things in its own right and in certain situations, I would prefer it over Snappy - actually in the deck that I have Archaeomancer in - Snappy could never be a replacement for it (but Mnemonic Wall and Scrivener fill in for it quite well)
Some substitutes are more effective than others. There are some obscure roles that can't really be substituted for. But there are a great number of roles than can be subbed for fairly easily (especially when translating to 2Hg or multiplayer formats) and there are others that are downright easily replicable.
October 7, 2013 8:32 p.m.
Well ok - some flicker effects would work with Silence and Snapcaster Mage - but more of them work with Archaeomancer and Silence like Conjurer's Closet and Venser, the Sojourner .
October 7, 2013 8:41 p.m.
Ooh. Running naked through poison ivy. I should probably do that sometime.Even if there were places where you'd prefer Archaeomancer to Snapcaster Mage , those aren't in the tier-one decks that need Snapcaster Mage . It's in a tier-two deck that needs Archaeomancer , and then you'd put it in, like fluffybunnypants said.
October 7, 2013 8:59 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #37
You know, I was hoping that someone picked up on that comment.
October 7, 2013 9:04 p.m.
I think anyone that feels the need to argue about deck prices and the top tier decks being the most expensive should take a look into Adam Prosak's (now dead) FNM Hero challenge articles. With only $100 to spend on a deck as well as tournament entries, he made it work. So the expensive decks don't always win. Sure they win often. But one of the key fundamentals to winning is being able to read the board and knowing the game state and every moment of the game.
Newer players usually have a hard time grasping such knowledge. I've been teaching a buddy of mine how to play better, and its taken him around 4-5 months to finally start seeing mistakes he makes. Such as Holding onto Selesnya Charms to pump his creatures, that keep getting killed, instead of making a 2/2 Knight at the end of his opponent's turn.Or miscounting his mana and using it incorrectly, thus costing himself the game.
Magic is a very hard game to master. There are alot of elements to the game to be on top, and expensive decks have nothing to do with it. I think new players just see the price tag and not the game as a whole.
October 7, 2013 9:07 p.m.
The Poison Ivy naked thing? yea, horrible Idea... i agree, I just had to point out that you can in fact run the "substitutes", but you sacrifice a ton of efficiency...
October 7, 2013 10:17 p.m.
I hope he was talking about it, or there would've been no point to me just doing it. Turns out, that's a bad idea.
October 7, 2013 10:21 p.m.
strateupjee says... #41
I just wanted to put in that I agree completely with the comment that said "a budget deck isn't a tier 1 deck with substitutions, it is a completely different deck." You cant swap Opportunity in for Sphinx's Revelation just the same as you cant put in AEtherize for Supreme Verdict (and yes I know those are both for U/W Control, I just think it is an expensive deck that will win, and so it is the perfect example), you have to play an entirely different deck until such time as you have won enough packs and traded/acquired the correct cards that allow you to put together either (a) the big boy version of the deck that you want to run, or (b) the next step up. I used to play nothing but budget, and while I consistently went 2-2 and 3-2, I was never doing well enough to win all the time. It was at that point that I realized, it was time to put up or shut up, and that's what I did, now I look back and I cant believe I didn't want to play 300 and 400 dollar decks.
Note: I also want to point out that I am a 17 year old with almost no disposable income, I struggle enough as it is just to make tournament entry and put gas in my car to get me there, however the majority of my card acquisition comes from store credit, loaning, or just good old trading, and it hasn't failed me yet.
October 7, 2013 10:54 p.m.
UmbrotheUmbreon says... #42
in some cases they do play bad and blame it on the deck. That's when you offer to switch decks after the match and beat your own deck with their budget deck. That's the best reality check you can give them! lol
My friend has a Golgari deck that we turned Jund. I was using his Izzet deck. I creamed his ass twice in a row. He got angry and said the Jund deck is terrible and doesn't work. We switched decks and I, once again, creamed his ass both games. That further pissed him off lol.
People need to learn it's not always in the money, but the piloting of a deck. You can be the richest player in the world, but if you aren't utilizing the deck properly you're gonna lose.
October 8, 2013 3:17 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #44
What has been seen can never be unseen..... but it can be quoted!
October 8, 2013 7:53 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #45
I definitely agree that building a budget version of a top tier deck is not the same as building a budget deck. For example, switching out shock lands for guild gates. I see people do this all the time because they think it doesn't make a big difference, and they don't understand that people pay an extra $10 for shocks for a reason. If you want a budget deck, stick to mono-red.
I guess part of this problem stems from people who play Duels on their Xbox, beat every challenge and unlock every deck, then come to FNM the first time expecting to dominate because they feel like an expert. Then the reality check hits. Duels doesn't really prepare you for competitive Magic. Real Magic costs more than $9.99. And those people at the game store are going to kick your ass...a lot (kick...not cream. Eww)
October 8, 2013 8:35 a.m.
t321livewire says... #46
for starters i can see how someone can make the excuse of not having money for the cards. you never know if the person bought the cards online or just got lucky pulls and made a deck around it. deck building takes skill and effort. people should first build the deck online or write it down. then check for lowest prices online. of course try and find the cards through trades or at a game shop 5 cents bin or 25 cents bin. then purchase the rest online. it saves people money and gets them pretty good decks if they do it this way. i did this with my new standard theros deck (red white heroic) and it went undefeated at friday night magic.
but as far as the argument goes. dont be a sore loser if you lost to a deck that has better cards in it just admit your opponent has created a good deck and get over it. its just a game guys and its all for fun
October 8, 2013 10:42 a.m.
DimirQueen says... #47
People will never stop complaining about it because it's the only thing they have to cling to without admitting that they need to improve on their skills. Obviously there are a lot of really expensive, really fantastic standard decks out there, but my boyfriend threw together a RDW deck for 40-50 dollars and went 4-0 at FNM.
I know someone who will literally spend 100-200 dollars on packs, and then complain because we invest in singles instead of depending on luck of the draw, and say the wins come from expensive deck building. Yeah no. It's pretty funny, actually.
October 8, 2013 11:36 a.m.
megawurmple says... #48
What I find irritating isn't that people don't invest when they want to be competitive, it's that a lot of people seem to think that more expensive decks are better by default. For example, I once had a kid come up to me at FNM and tried to psych me out by telling me that his deck cost about $300. I beat him easily with a deck that, at the time, was worth about $100. I also once beat some guy who netdecked a $400 PTQ winner's deck with the Vampire-themed Intro Deck from Innistrad. The problem isn't that their deck isn't expensive enough to be competitive, it's that they're not a good enough player to be competitive.
October 8, 2013 11:59 a.m.
DimirQueen says... #49
Players are either fine with admitting that they need to approve, or will complain constantly about opponents blowing more money on their decks, or their deck not being shuffled, just needed one more card, etc. I admit I'm crappy at magic, at least I don't tell people the only reason they win is because they have the money to buy a good deck (which I've heard hanging around FNM a thousand times. Do people seriously not realize how offensive that is?)
October 8, 2013 12:06 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #50
I swapped my Esper Control deck with a kid playing a Sliver deck just before rotation who said I only beat him because I had the money to build it and we went for a best of three..... and I wrecked him.... further pissing him off.
xlaleclx says... #2
In every format there are "competitive" decks that aren't ridiculously expensive. What I have a problem with is people who don't want to pay much for a deck and they're terrible at the game but when they lose they blame it on others having more expensive decks
October 7, 2013 1:27 p.m.