I’ve been considering a budget format that I was hoping people would be interested in. The rules are fairly simple. Players build regular 60-card constructed decks. All cards that are modern legal are legal in this format, but the total price of the deck must be $30 or less (I’m not married to this particular number, various price points could be set for different experiences). The price of a card is considered to be the medium price on TCGPlayer.
This format is designed to offer a solution to two problems that I believe exists in most other formats: accessibility and creativity.
Accessibility is addressed through the budget restriction. By placing a strict cap on the budget, far more players will not only purchase a deck that is legal in the format, but one that is actually competitive. As someone who has been a budget player for years, I’ve received many comments along the lines of “That deck is actually pretty good, considering the budget.” While I know wizards has been concerned about the barrier to entry in Magic for new players, I have found that the far more restrictive barrier is the one between beginner and intermediate level play. When I go to an FNM or other local low-stakes tournament, I find that nearly all other decks are expensive, tournament-competitive decks. I can’t speak to every single FNM or local event, but I can say this has been the case in my experience across several different stores and a few years. Creating a format that allows a far larger pool of players to be competitive will allow more players to become deeply involved in the game, which I expect would increase the average level of gameplay and sell more cards.
Creativity is encouraged by creating a new format that is self-regulating, and I expect will change frequently. Additionally, the low budget encourages experimentation. When a deck costs $30 maximum, it is not a Herculean task to acquire it, as it can be for many popular decks in any format. This should encourage players to frequently buy new decks and try new strategies. What’s more is that by cutting out staple cards and archetypes, players must start from scratch in discovering the new format. Of course, this happens in any new format, such as when standard rotates, but what is unique to this format is the self-regulating aspect. While in other formats cards and archetypes become established, prices rise, and competitive strategies become inaccessible. If this format were to catch on, if any strategy became too popular the key cards would simply price themselves out of the format, and new strategies would have to be discovered.
Why play this format instead of pauper?
I believe pauper suffers from problems in both accessibility and creativity, which this format is meant to address. In terms of accessibility, while significantly less expensive than other formats, does not have particular budget restrictions, and some of the more popular cards have risen to significant prices. As of the time I’m writing this, pauper UR Delver, one of the most popular decks in the format costs about $138 on MTGGoldfish. While this deck is on the more expensive side, it seems that many pauper decks exist around the $80 range. This seems insignificant when compared to the astronomical prices of modern or legacy decks, but is still represents a significant expense for someone in a limited budget, especially younger players. The larger issue with pauper in my opinion is on the creativity side. It is an established principle of Wizards to increase complexity with rarity. By limiting card choices to commons, pauper eliminates several effects that are unique and potentially powerful, but were slightly too slow or required too much set-up for other constructed formats. I think it makes sense to have a format in which players are encouraged to find ways to utilize undervalued/undiscovered cards that didn’t quite make it in other formats.
Why not just play MTGOnline? Prices tend to be lower.
I enjoy the face to face social interaction of paper magic. For me, it’s far more satisfying to play a game across from a live opponent than online. Additionally, while less expensive than paper, buying a deck online can still be expensive. Playing pauper online might not be too restrictive, but pauper has other issues on the creativity side that I pointed out above.
Why not build a deck over time, investing in a couple cards when you can and eventually creating a competitive deck?
First, many format staples are expensive, and in some cases buying a single copy of one can be as expensive as buying multiple budget decks. Additionally, it’s pretty unsatisfying to be buying expensive cards for a deck that you hope will be competitive in two years. Furthermore, I find deck building to be one of the most enjoyable parts of Magic, and I would rather have the ability to experiment with being able to try several different strategies which might or might not be effective or enjoyable than buying one that might not work out.
This format is designed to offer a solution to two problems that I believe exists in most other formats: accessibility and creativity.
Accessibility is addressed through the budget restriction. By placing a strict cap on the budget, far more players will not only purchase a deck that is legal in the format, but one that is actually competitive. As someone who has been a budget player for years, I’ve received many comments along the lines of “That deck is actually pretty good, considering the budget.” While I know wizards has been concerned about the barrier to entry in Magic for new players, I have found that the far more restrictive barrier is the one between beginner and intermediate level play. When I go to an FNM or other local low-stakes tournament, I find that nearly all other decks are expensive, tournament-competitive decks. I can’t speak to every single FNM or local event, but I can say this has been the case in my experience across several different stores and a few years. Creating a format that allows a far larger pool of players to be competitive will allow more players to become deeply involved in the game, which I expect would increase the average level of gameplay and sell more cards.
Creativity is encouraged by creating a new format that is self-regulating, and I expect will change frequently. Additionally, the low budget encourages experimentation. When a deck costs $30 maximum, it is not a Herculean task to acquire it, as it can be for many popular decks in any format. This should encourage players to frequently buy new decks and try new strategies. What’s more is that by cutting out staple cards and archetypes, players must start from scratch in discovering the new format. Of course, this happens in any new format, such as when standard rotates, but what is unique to this format is the self-regulating aspect. While in other formats cards and archetypes become established, prices rise, and competitive strategies become inaccessible. If this format were to catch on, if any strategy became too popular the key cards would simply price themselves out of the format, and new strategies would have to be discovered.
Why play this format instead of pauper?
I believe pauper suffers from problems in both accessibility and creativity, which this format is meant to address. In terms of accessibility, while significantly less expensive than other formats, does not have particular budget restrictions, and some of the more popular cards have risen to significant prices. As of the time I’m writing this, pauper UR Delver, one of the most popular decks in the format costs about $138 on MTGGoldfish. While this deck is on the more expensive side, it seems that many pauper decks exist around the $80 range. This seems insignificant when compared to the astronomical prices of modern or legacy decks, but is still represents a significant expense for someone in a limited budget, especially younger players. The larger issue with pauper in my opinion is on the creativity side. It is an established principle of Wizards to increase complexity with rarity. By limiting card choices to commons, pauper eliminates several effects that are unique and potentially powerful, but were slightly too slow or required too much set-up for other constructed formats. I think it makes sense to have a format in which players are encouraged to find ways to utilize undervalued/undiscovered cards that didn’t quite make it in other formats.
Why not just play MTGOnline? Prices tend to be lower.
I enjoy the face to face social interaction of paper magic. For me, it’s far more satisfying to play a game across from a live opponent than online. Additionally, while less expensive than paper, buying a deck online can still be expensive. Playing pauper online might not be too restrictive, but pauper has other issues on the creativity side that I pointed out above.
Why not build a deck over time, investing in a couple cards when you can and eventually creating a competitive deck?
First, many format staples are expensive, and in some cases buying a single copy of one can be as expensive as buying multiple budget decks. Additionally, it’s pretty unsatisfying to be buying expensive cards for a deck that you hope will be competitive in two years. Furthermore, I find deck building to be one of the most enjoyable parts of Magic, and I would rather have the ability to experiment with being able to try several different strategies which might or might not be effective or enjoyable than buying one that might not work out.