Sure SOFI + random creature is randomly good.. but if you play things to get around it beforehand, like limiting the number of creatures with red/blue in the casting cost or play some degree of artifact hate or basic removals/bounce, it is not difficult to limit the damage of such a scenario. Even just playing as if your opponent might have something can help you lessen such damage... sofi/soli are overplayed which is why GW aggro (a deck with green creatures which can block protection from RUBW) can actually thrive in the format.
Umezawa's jitte, during its life in the format, was a card that the more experienced players had no qualms against because they did the above carefully, or at least created their decks with it in mind.
Some situations like moat is more difficult to handle because some decks are just too focused on the board to have enough answers. For such scenarios, hindsight is very important because people can actually build their decks to be semi resistant to game 1 moats (like elves that should by rights scoop to it).
Unfortunately, some people have to turn to game 2 or at least build the deck to not be so vulnerable to such cards.
wasteland is definitely one of the best cards in the format because the mana base, possibly the weakest link to many decks that try to use the multi-colored lands to enable the play of a variety of casting costs.
It's not v anti-synergistic in control because there are many lands in the format that are very threatening. It usually serves as damage control or something that moves the game one turn later (which gives the control decks a slight chance of mana screwing the opp who might be playing less lands).
STP is a very odd example of anti-synergy because it is proven through time that giving your opponent life for a creature and a mana is supposed to be still kick-ass. I would think a better example would be grove of the burnwillow which is extremely horrendous if you are trying to burn out someone.
Lorescale doesn't need a deck to work around it for it to be good. Sure it helps but it is not dependent on card draw to the point where u have to play card draws just to support it. Usually, fact or fiction is there in most decks as a "powerful staple". (but hey, it's not expensive!)
These examples of anti-synergy are not very good because they aren't strong as an argument but I can see where you are going at and I agree that "synergy" itself is not enough since it's a matter of inter-card relationships. However, as long as there is a reason to why every card should be played, that is usually enough to justify most decks. It's the case of how strong each of your reasoning is, compared to your opponents'.
"I play this because it's kick ass" vs "I play this because I need an answer to something" usually ends up in the latter becoming a better performing deck. Still, the latter is formed mainly out of experience and requires time and effort to obtain but the degree of it cannot be verified because you simply don't draw all your cards.
Of cos, I don't deny that most decks would like to have "kick ass powerful" cards.
And I digress again to say $ cards don't = to kick ass powerful cards. Some cards are expensive for various reasons but they are not priced according to their power level, that's for sure.
Although sharing accounts is expressly forbidden by WotC...
I think the online PTQs will be closer to Pro Tours or at the very least Grand Prix, as anyone in the world can (and will) play in them, including people who have been to multiple Pro Tours but may not be on the train.
I don't really see what's wrong with this. It's not allowed in paper magic but this isn't the same game at all, and the rules are completely different. It's convenient having a friend play a round or two for you if you have to leave for a couple hours or take a lunch break.
"I recognized Nao from MTGO. He's a Dragonquest (his clan), my friends are also Dragonquests, so I usually finish premier events for them on their accounts."
i think he was letting other people play his drafts or he was playing them for a friends account or something but dont quote me on it because i dont want to spread lies if im wrong
As we announced today, we have chosen to unban Dream Halls, Entomb, and Metalworker in Legacy.
"Entomb and Dream Halls are legal in Magic Online's Classic format and have not been problematically powerful, and we believe that they may enable new Legacy decks".
Yeah.. I was wondering the same thing myself. I tried a google search and he won the MTGO Invitational in 2007... but was there a scandal? Was he sharing accounts?
We could launch equal complaints against paper magic. Online, plays are never ambiguous and you can't lie to the judge about what happened. The opponent can't stack his deck so I don't have to watch him like we're suddenly playing Three Card Monty. You never lose a game for forgetting to de-sideboard, no one ever over-draws or under-draws a card. And your opponent can't stall you into a draw, he can only stall himself into a loss.
Sanchez is right that they're different, but I don't think that paper is the clear winner in the comparison.
Now as for playing against a Patrick Chapin, this is a PTQ. If you can't hold up against players of that quality, you have no business aiming for the PT in the first place. This isn't like cloning a pro at every FNM in town. This is high-level competition where you expect competition to be. And for the players using the help, if they need in-game assistance then they're only setting up for failure once they get to San Diego.
Now with top quality games being played online (this goes for MOCS too) here's what I would like to see: broadcast replays that SHOW THE PLAYERS HANDS! PT broadcasts can't really do that because a camera over each player's shoulder at all times would interfere. (Though they could do a better job showing the actual table instead of extreme closeups of a player's nostrils.) But there's no excuse online for not sharing that information post-match. And it would directly lead to higher quality analysis and the ability to learn from pro play.
In fact the replays already record that information, because you can see your hand in your own replay. So all they need to do is queue it up with a "watch as" feature where you choose the player whose view you have, and there we are.
Heh I had to actually reread that section to see what you were talking about with Wild Nacatl and I think you misunderstood the point of that paragraph. The point wasn't that Nacatl is bad (my opinion still stands that it is insane as an early drop or good to add pressure to a stable board) but drawing it when what you want is an answer to a huge threat (Adjudicator) is just bad. I'm sorry if you thought I was saying one was great and one wasn't. They are very different types of cards. Adjudicator coming online kills the non-attacking Nacatl with the kinds of mana he had available.
Of course good Naya decks love to run Wild Nacatl. It is a huge beating turn 2 or 3. What I was talking about there was the disparity in the draws. Of that game. I suppose if you were reading this with an eye to refuting my claim that the format is broken you would naturally read that paragraph different than if you were just reading it as a report with a bit of whine in it.
I understand that your position is that the format isn't broken and I am not saying that I am 100% right to FEEL as I do but when outgunned that badly it is hard not to feel that way. I am sorry if you thought I was presenting an argument to support that claim in that paragraph. I do think it is true. I have played far more broken decks than the ones in this report before and since those matches but the leyline/helm trick ranks up there as damned near unstoppable if you don't have a counter or krosan grip in hand. Particularly the first game it really took me by surprise and I felt it was a blow out already.
I know there are some very well tuned pauperesque decks (is that a word? seems like it should be) out there. I played against Gimmie with one of his decks like that and it was very strong. So I know it can be done but my collection isn't set up to be versatile enough yet to even deal with a 25 ticket change. (Which is what mono red or elves would cost me at the very least.) I agree with you about the attitude thing. I was very intimidated by losing to broken.decks before the tourney was even started so that set up my attitude. I do try and give each game my all even if I think (based on my ability to look ahead) the game is already lost. I don't start the match thinking "ok this is an auto loss but humor the other guy." I think "Ok this will be a very hard match, try not to make too many mistakes."
One of the worst things I do is realize 2 seconds after clicking OK that I didn't want to, or 2 seconds after clicking no that I wanted to click yes. Something I need to keep in mind as it is a bad habit to go into autopilot waiting for lag to resolve etc.
One last thing, I do build my decks to have as much synergy as I can find and I try to avoid antisynergy combinations because I hate losing to the draw. Tarms claim that he takes out the tutors I can understand but I still feel they are crucial. But he is on a different level of understanding than I am.
Kyle stated (later) that he used to play MTGO but no longer does. I don't know about pchapin, but the other obviously does play MtGO already.
I had actually forgotten how much the vocal haters really despise MtGO. But this topic reminded me about that, as did a few topics on the MTGSalvation boards this week that I stumbled into...
Meh, they better get used to it because MTGO is here to stay.
So w/ Landfall and the cards you previewed, you'd get double counters for putting a terramorphic expanse into play right? one for playing that land, one for saccing it and putting a basica land into play. am i understanding this mechanic correctly as it relates to expanse?
Now a deck is more than the sum of its parts. Just putting a bunch of really powerful expensive cards together in a deck is not going to give you a tier 1 deck. Synergy only goes so far.
Quote Tarmotog - "Personally, cards themselves don't matter much because most cards I play aren't used by people anyway. The only cards that I would recommend getting aggressively are lands. These affect your games in the long run."
I respectfully disagree with this statement.
Quite often 1 or 2 cards will simply win the game for someone. That's one of the core reasons that there is a lot of discussion/complaining about the banned/restricted list.
1) Sometimes a player just puts a Sword of Fire and Ice on any random creature and rides it out to victory because his opponent can't find an answer. 2) Sometimes a control player tutors up a Humility or Moat, plays it, and the aggro player isn't able to draw anything to stop those cards. 3) Sometimes a well placed Wasteland / Fulminator Mage / Avalanche Rider will take out a key mana source and stop a player from doing anything for several turns.
These victories are not due to having a super synergistic deck. It's due to playing cards that have a large impact on the game.
Yes, your deck should have a strategy. Yes, most of your cards should contribute to that strategy and have good interactions with each other. However, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule.
1) A little land destruction goes a long way in many decks that don't have the specific goal of destroying lands in order to win. I've seen plenty of control decks play Wasteland, which seems a bit anti-synergistic. 2) Swords to Plowshares belongs in a Zoo or White Weenie even though it causes your opponent to gain life, which is slightly anti-synergistic. 3)Lorescale Coatl and Fact or Fiction can be in the same deck even though they don't combo with each other.
Some good cards matter. I don't think I could consistently win games with the most expensive mana base in the world and the non-land cards in my deck made up entirely of commons. Some cards just don't have a good substitute.
Fact is...MTGO has no way of keeping your friends from being in the same room, calling you on their cellphone, etc. People will play as a team. That much is guaranteed.
However, the writer says that "1) MTGO is hated, detested, and loathed by a not small portion of the paper playing community."... Fact is you are not allowed to get help from others in a PTQ. Yet with these PTQ's on MODO you most certainly will play against people who have help from others.
I dont say that because I hate MODO...just that its a fact.
Also, I'm pretty sure that most of the people quoted play on MODO quite a bit. Its not a paper playing community hatred issue at all. Just a question about fairness. The "no help from others" PTQ rule is unenforceable on MODO and therefore some players will have a significant competitive advantage. Simple as that.
K.H.E. and L.C. (abbreviated in case someone reads the comments who doesn't want to be spoiled) are already confirmed as you can find them in the visual spoiler on wizards.com (with links to the pages where they were spoiled).
I gotta say that I like these articles. Although the format is technically "dead," it is still interesting to see you work out some fun ideas and implement them in creative ways. Good job.
Tarmotog brings up a very good point about money cards not necessarily being central to a deck. It is much more important that a deck have synergy and good interactions. Sometimes this may require some money cards, but by far the most necessary expensive cards are always the lands. The good thing is that once you have a set of fetches, duals, and shock lands, you can use them in every single deck that you make they are by far the most productive use of money that you can spend if you intend to make more than one deck.
Many other cards are highly replaceable. Take for example Kavu Titan. I have seen it in some Green aggro decks, but it is by no means a mainstay. It's a rare and I can see an unenlightened person complaining that that a deck is all rares after seeing 2 rare lands and maybe a Grim Lavamancer on the first turn. The player that is complaining never stops to think that the Kavu Titan could have been any number of other 2 or 5 drops, most of which would actually be better than the Titan in the first place, but maybe without the versatility. Also not every rare is a money rare. Most rares and uncommons in a deck are probably under 2 tickets. Having a lot of rares does not necessarily mean a deck is good or expensive.
Also I think you chose a very poor example of card inequality when you mentioned Adjudicator vs Wild Nacatl. Wild Nacatl is played far far far more heavily than Adjudicator as far as T8 results. Why? Because in many instances it is the better card. Sure in the late game once both players have established their mana and are stabilized Adjudicator wins out, but using that situation as your point of comparison shows a lack of understanding in card values based on the format as a whole. Also Adjudicator is not a terribly expensive card in the first place.
Am I claiming that every $50 deck can beat a $300 deck? No, but I don't think you have to spend $300 to compete. I think that there are quite a few $80-$120 decks that can compete with $300-$400 decks. Plus the nice thing is that since a majority of the value of a deck is in the lands, once you have them creating a new deck will only cost a fraction of the full cost. The most important thing, however is going to be to have the right attitude. Going into a match thinking you are going to lose because of a discrepancy in card prices is not going to help you any.
Are you able to get casual Van games? When I used to play it took forever to find an opponent.
Sure SOFI + random creature is randomly good.. but if you play things to get around it beforehand, like limiting the number of creatures with red/blue in the casting cost or play some degree of artifact hate or basic removals/bounce, it is not difficult to limit the damage of such a scenario. Even just playing as if your opponent might have something can help you lessen such damage... sofi/soli are overplayed which is why GW aggro (a deck with green creatures which can block protection from RUBW) can actually thrive in the format.
Umezawa's jitte, during its life in the format, was a card that the more experienced players had no qualms against because they did the above carefully, or at least created their decks with it in mind.
Some situations like moat is more difficult to handle because some decks are just too focused on the board to have enough answers. For such scenarios, hindsight is very important because people can actually build their decks to be semi resistant to game 1 moats (like elves that should by rights scoop to it).
Unfortunately, some people have to turn to game 2 or at least build the deck to not be so vulnerable to such cards.
wasteland is definitely one of the best cards in the format because the mana base, possibly the weakest link to many decks that try to use the multi-colored lands to enable the play of a variety of casting costs.
It's not v anti-synergistic in control because there are many lands in the format that are very threatening. It usually serves as damage control or something that moves the game one turn later (which gives the control decks a slight chance of mana screwing the opp who might be playing less lands).
STP is a very odd example of anti-synergy because it is proven through time that giving your opponent life for a creature and a mana is supposed to be still kick-ass. I would think a better example would be grove of the burnwillow which is extremely horrendous if you are trying to burn out someone.
Lorescale doesn't need a deck to work around it for it to be good. Sure it helps but it is not dependent on card draw to the point where u have to play card draws just to support it. Usually, fact or fiction is there in most decks as a "powerful staple". (but hey, it's not expensive!)
These examples of anti-synergy are not very good because they aren't strong as an argument but I can see where you are going at and I agree that "synergy" itself is not enough since it's a matter of inter-card relationships. However, as long as there is a reason to why every card should be played, that is usually enough to justify most decks. It's the case of how strong each of your reasoning is, compared to your opponents'.
"I play this because it's kick ass" vs "I play this because I need an answer to something" usually ends up in the latter becoming a better performing deck. Still, the latter is formed mainly out of experience and requires time and effort to obtain but the degree of it cannot be verified because you simply don't draw all your cards.
Of cos, I don't deny that most decks would like to have "kick ass powerful" cards.
And I digress again to say $ cards don't = to kick ass powerful cards. Some cards are expensive for various reasons but they are not priced according to their power level, that's for sure.
Although sharing accounts is expressly forbidden by WotC...
I think the online PTQs will be closer to Pro Tours or at the very least Grand Prix, as anyone in the world can (and will) play in them, including people who have been to multiple Pro Tours but may not be on the train.
thanks for clarifying
I don't really see what's wrong with this. It's not allowed in paper magic but this isn't the same game at all, and the rules are completely different. It's convenient having a friend play a round or two for you if you have to leave for a couple hours or take a lunch break.
A quote from Tiago's article on SSG:
"I recognized Nao from MTGO. He's a Dragonquest (his clan), my friends are also Dragonquests, so I usually finish premier events for them on their accounts."
Article here:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/coklimited/8923_So_Close_Yet_So_Far_P...
He's far from the only one whose done that, but sort of became the poster child for it.
i think he was letting other people play his drafts or he was playing them for a friends account or something but dont quote me on it because i dont want to spread lies if im wrong
As we announced today, we have chosen to unban Dream Halls, Entomb, and Metalworker in Legacy.
"Entomb and Dream Halls are legal in Magic Online's Classic format and have not been problematically powerful, and we believe that they may enable new Legacy decks".
Eternal Prophet!
Yeah.. I was wondering the same thing myself. I tried a google search and he won the MTGO Invitational in 2007... but was there a scandal? Was he sharing accounts?
We could launch equal complaints against paper magic. Online, plays are never ambiguous and you can't lie to the judge about what happened. The opponent can't stack his deck so I don't have to watch him like we're suddenly playing Three Card Monty. You never lose a game for forgetting to de-sideboard, no one ever over-draws or under-draws a card. And your opponent can't stall you into a draw, he can only stall himself into a loss.
Sanchez is right that they're different, but I don't think that paper is the clear winner in the comparison.
Now as for playing against a Patrick Chapin, this is a PTQ. If you can't hold up against players of that quality, you have no business aiming for the PT in the first place. This isn't like cloning a pro at every FNM in town. This is high-level competition where you expect competition to be. And for the players using the help, if they need in-game assistance then they're only setting up for failure once they get to San Diego.
Now with top quality games being played online (this goes for MOCS too) here's what I would like to see: broadcast replays that SHOW THE PLAYERS HANDS! PT broadcasts can't really do that because a camera over each player's shoulder at all times would interfere. (Though they could do a better job showing the actual table instead of extreme closeups of a player's nostrils.) But there's no excuse online for not sharing that information post-match. And it would directly lead to higher quality analysis and the ability to learn from pro play.
In fact the replays already record that information, because you can see your hand in your own replay. So all they need to do is queue it up with a "watch as" feature where you choose the player whose view you have, and there we are.
Or get a PureMTGO address. :)
"3) WotC is going to have to a lot of work to keep these events having negative "Tiago" stigmas attached to them."
what is this supposed to mean?
That is correct. Which is why Knight of the Reliquary has jumped up, and why the new fetches actually make any sense at all in this set...
Heh I had to actually reread that section to see what you were talking about with Wild Nacatl and I think you misunderstood the point of that paragraph. The point wasn't that Nacatl is bad (my opinion still stands that it is insane as an early drop or good to add pressure to a stable board) but drawing it when what you want is an answer to a huge threat (Adjudicator) is just bad. I'm sorry if you thought I was saying one was great and one wasn't. They are very different types of cards. Adjudicator coming online kills the non-attacking Nacatl with the kinds of mana he had available.
Of course good Naya decks love to run Wild Nacatl. It is a huge beating turn 2 or 3. What I was talking about there was the disparity in the draws. Of that game. I suppose if you were reading this with an eye to refuting my claim that the format is broken you would naturally read that paragraph different than if you were just reading it as a report with a bit of whine in it.
I understand that your position is that the format isn't broken and I am not saying that I am 100% right to FEEL as I do but when outgunned that badly it is hard not to feel that way. I am sorry if you thought I was presenting an argument to support that claim in that paragraph. I do think it is true. I have played far more broken decks than the ones in this report before and since those matches but the leyline/helm trick ranks up there as damned near unstoppable if you don't have a counter or krosan grip in hand. Particularly the first game it really took me by surprise and I felt it was a blow out already.
I know there are some very well tuned pauperesque decks (is that a word? seems like it should be) out there. I played against Gimmie with one of his decks like that and it was very strong. So I know it can be done but my collection isn't set up to be versatile enough yet to even deal with a 25 ticket change. (Which is what mono red or elves would cost me at the very least.) I agree with you about the attitude thing. I was very intimidated by losing to broken.decks before the tourney was even started so that set up my attitude. I do try and give each game my all even if I think (based on my ability to look ahead) the game is already lost. I don't start the match thinking "ok this is an auto loss but humor the other guy." I think "Ok this will be a very hard match, try not to make too many mistakes."
One of the worst things I do is realize 2 seconds after clicking OK that I didn't want to, or 2 seconds after clicking no that I wanted to click yes. Something I need to keep in mind as it is a bad habit to go into autopilot waiting for lag to resolve etc.
One last thing, I do build my decks to have as much synergy as I can find and I try to avoid antisynergy combinations because I hate losing to the draw. Tarms claim that he takes out the tutors I can understand but I still feel they are crucial. But he is on a different level of understanding than I am.
Thanks very much for your advice.
Kyle stated (later) that he used to play MTGO but no longer does. I don't know about pchapin, but the other obviously does play MtGO already.
I had actually forgotten how much the vocal haters really despise MtGO. But this topic reminded me about that, as did a few topics on the MTGSalvation boards this week that I stumbled into...
Meh, they better get used to it because MTGO is here to stay.
So w/ Landfall and the cards you previewed, you'd get double counters for putting a terramorphic expanse into play right? one for playing that land, one for saccing it and putting a basica land into play. am i understanding this mechanic correctly as it relates to expanse?
Now a deck is more than the sum of its parts. Just putting a bunch of really powerful expensive cards together in a deck is not going to give you a tier 1 deck. Synergy only goes so far.
Quote Tarmotog - "Personally, cards themselves don't matter much because most cards I play aren't used by people anyway. The only cards that I would recommend getting aggressively are lands. These affect your games in the long run."
I respectfully disagree with this statement.
Quite often 1 or 2 cards will simply win the game for someone. That's one of the core reasons that there is a lot of discussion/complaining about the banned/restricted list.
1) Sometimes a player just puts a Sword of Fire and Ice on any random creature and rides it out to victory because his opponent can't find an answer. 2) Sometimes a control player tutors up a Humility or Moat, plays it, and the aggro player isn't able to draw anything to stop those cards. 3) Sometimes a well placed Wasteland / Fulminator Mage / Avalanche Rider will take out a key mana source and stop a player from doing anything for several turns.
These victories are not due to having a super synergistic deck. It's due to playing cards that have a large impact on the game.
Yes, your deck should have a strategy. Yes, most of your cards should contribute to that strategy and have good interactions with each other. However, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule.
1) A little land destruction goes a long way in many decks that don't have the specific goal of destroying lands in order to win. I've seen plenty of control decks play Wasteland, which seems a bit anti-synergistic. 2) Swords to Plowshares belongs in a Zoo or White Weenie even though it causes your opponent to gain life, which is slightly anti-synergistic. 3)Lorescale Coatl and Fact or Fiction can be in the same deck even though they don't combo with each other.
Some good cards matter. I don't think I could consistently win games with the most expensive mana base in the world and the non-land cards in my deck made up entirely of commons. Some cards just don't have a good substitute.
Fact is...MTGO has no way of keeping your friends from being in the same room, calling you on their cellphone, etc. People will play as a team. That much is guaranteed.
However, the writer says that "1) MTGO is hated, detested, and loathed by a not small portion of the paper playing community."... Fact is you are not allowed to get help from others in a PTQ. Yet with these PTQ's on MODO you most certainly will play against people who have help from others.
I dont say that because I hate MODO...just that its a fact.
Also, I'm pretty sure that most of the people quoted play on MODO quite a bit. Its not a paper playing community hatred issue at all. Just a question about fairness. The "no help from others" PTQ rule is unenforceable on MODO and therefore some players will have a significant competitive advantage. Simple as that.
-M
K.H.E. and L.C. (abbreviated in case someone reads the comments who doesn't want to be spoiled) are already confirmed as you can find them in the visual spoiler on wizards.com (with links to the pages where they were spoiled).
wow journey to nowhere is really really good for pauper ww! 2 mana and 3 mana difference is HUUUUGE!
super informative article, i can't thank you enough for writing such timely and informative mtgo articles week in and week out, thanks hammy!
Glad you like 'em, thanks :)
At first I was upset that vanguard died.
Then I realized: it doesn't affect me! All that's gone is tournament vanguard. And all I played (and wrote about) was casual vanguard anyway.
I gotta say that I like these articles. Although the format is technically "dead," it is still interesting to see you work out some fun ideas and implement them in creative ways. Good job.
Here is the link for the PRE this weekend:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75846/20073605/TRIBAL_APOCAL...
Registration starts at 1:30 with the event starting at 2:00pm est. Everything will be occuring in /join Tribal
See you there.
Tarmotog brings up a very good point about money cards not necessarily being central to a deck. It is much more important that a deck have synergy and good interactions. Sometimes this may require some money cards, but by far the most necessary expensive cards are always the lands. The good thing is that once you have a set of fetches, duals, and shock lands, you can use them in every single deck that you make they are by far the most productive use of money that you can spend if you intend to make more than one deck.
Many other cards are highly replaceable. Take for example Kavu Titan. I have seen it in some Green aggro decks, but it is by no means a mainstay. It's a rare and I can see an unenlightened person complaining that that a deck is all rares after seeing 2 rare lands and maybe a Grim Lavamancer on the first turn. The player that is complaining never stops to think that the Kavu Titan could have been any number of other 2 or 5 drops, most of which would actually be better than the Titan in the first place, but maybe without the versatility. Also not every rare is a money rare. Most rares and uncommons in a deck are probably under 2 tickets. Having a lot of rares does not necessarily mean a deck is good or expensive.
Also I think you chose a very poor example of card inequality when you mentioned Adjudicator vs Wild Nacatl. Wild Nacatl is played far far far more heavily than Adjudicator as far as T8 results. Why? Because in many instances it is the better card. Sure in the late game once both players have established their mana and are stabilized Adjudicator wins out, but using that situation as your point of comparison shows a lack of understanding in card values based on the format as a whole. Also Adjudicator is not a terribly expensive card in the first place.
Am I claiming that every $50 deck can beat a $300 deck? No, but I don't think you have to spend $300 to compete. I think that there are quite a few $80-$120 decks that can compete with $300-$400 decks. Plus the nice thing is that since a majority of the value of a deck is in the lands, once you have them creating a new deck will only cost a fraction of the full cost. The most important thing, however is going to be to have the right attitude. Going into a match thinking you are going to lose because of a discrepancy in card prices is not going to help you any.
Quote - Tarmotog - "People tend to just play $ cards because they are good but just good cards don't make the deck."
Im stealing this !
Great article as always, you missed the link for the Tribal Classic Player Run event. Please could you post it as a comment, cheers