JXClaytor's picture
By: JXClaytor, Joshua Claytor
Apr 11 2016 12:00pm
Login or register to post comments

Flashback drafts are taking a break while we wait for Shadows over Innistrad to come on to Magic Online!  Just like last time we had a break in the action I decided to switch gears and focus on Pauper for a little bit.  I'll be doing the same with this break. 

The last time I went on my little Pauper jaunt, I was unkind to a popular deck in the format.  I am probably going to be unkind to a deck in the format that is not as popular, but I believe that needs to be said. 

If you want to play an all in combo deck in Pauper, that's fine, but you really need to play Eye Candy (or Izzet Blitz or whatever it's called.) instead of the Inside Out combo.  If you are not familiar with it, here is the decklist I played in the league.  

This deck mashes up two cores of favorite decks from Magic's past.  We have the Caw part of CawBlade (Squadron Hawk and shuffle effects) and we have the Tireless Tribe part of Life, and old Extended deck that looked to gain an unspeakable amount of life, and then kill the opponent with Starlit Sanctum or Test of Endurance

Peanut Butter and Chocolate are two great tastes that go well together.  CawBlade and Life are two great decks that, um, don't go well together at all. 

So what does this deck do?  Besides spin its wheels, the plan is to play a Tireless Tribe on turn one.  This leaves you with five cards in hand.  On turn two, you draw up to six, play your second land, and make a difficult decision with the other five in your hand!  If you discard four cards you are giving your tribe +16 on the backside.  That makes for a 1/17 creature.  Little short to actually kill the opponent.  However if the fifth card is Inside Out (and we are assuming it is) you can cast the instant, and discard the card drawn to make it a 21/1.  That kills the opponent!  For some reason after Inside Out resolves, effect that would apply to toughness apply to power instead. 

I know it does not make much sense to me either. 

If you miss the Izzet Blitz like combo kill, the deck plays like a Squadron Hawk deck normally would.  You take to the skies and hope that your incremental card advantage will protect your fragile creatures and allow you to take over the game in the later stages. 

I did get at least one turn two kill in while I was playing in this league.  Believe me killing on turn two in Pauper is great!  However, if something were to mess that up, say, a Geth's Verdict or Celestial Flare, then you're really in a bad spot!  You have no cards in hand, nothing in the board in play but two lands and a graveyard that may be useless if you did not discard Deep Analysis

Let's take a look at the deck in action!

Round One

Round Two

Round Three

Round Four

Round Five

I ended up going 3-2 in the league picking up a surprise win over Mono Black Control, and taking down Bogles and Jeskai Rebirth as well.  The Teachings matchup felt so unwinnable though.  The rebirth matchup does not feel as bad as the loss I took to it made it look.  The teachings loss however was just soul crushing domination. 

I did have fun with the deck though.  It's a little used (or at the very least little successful) Pauper strategy, and casting Tireless Tribe does bring back some great memories of the Extended format.  Because it has a lack of reach, and oftentimes just dumps it hand on the table for no reason, I can't really recommend playing it seriously. 

Here is the updated Pauper Power Rankings, which is my opinion on how the decks of the format are, and my personal enjoyment of them.

1.  Izzet Tron
2.  Affinity
3.  Inside Out
4.  Acid Trip

Unless the deck is sixty basic lands, I feel like everything is going to rank higher than Acid Trip.  That deck, wow that deck! 

Next week I will be back with Pauper and I will be taking a look at Temur Tron in the format! 

Thanks for stopping by! 


Looks like a fun if tricky by Paul Leicht at Thu, 04/14/2016 - 03:07
Paul Leicht's picture

Looks like a fun if tricky deck. I am curious why only one mulldrifter? It seems like a card that helps refill the hand for 3 mana would be 4x of. Particularly if later in the game it actually flies and stuff.

Yeah there are too many one by JXClaytor at Sun, 04/17/2016 - 22:38
JXClaytor's picture

Yeah there are too many one ofs in the deck for my liking. The mulldrifter the gush, the blessing all feel super weird.

I like the bodyguard over the blessing, would probably go to a fourth there because it's good as fodder for the mono black matchup.

Mulldrifter I think I would rather have as gush, it adds three cards to hand over the 1 that mulldrifter adds.

So you aren't expecting by Paul Leicht at Mon, 04/18/2016 - 06:40
Paul Leicht's picture

So you aren't expecting corner case games where grinding a win with Mulldrifter will happen then? It doesn't give you 1 card replacement but 2 if you consider having him out and flying over your opponent's dudes worth while, or perhaps not letting the enemy hawks get through. And he does not put you behind on land development. Not saying that's always a problem but honestly without a good reason to want islands in hand (land destruction, discard outlet, etc) I would rather have the mulldrifters.

So is this not your own brew? Or is it something you regret now and will change soon?

I think the grinding wins by JXClaytor at Mon, 04/18/2016 - 10:51
JXClaytor's picture

I think the grinding wins would come from Squadron Hawks.

I wish it were my brew, a friend of mine pointed it out last November and I have been playing it since it then.

>Mulldrifter I think I would by longtimegone at Mon, 04/18/2016 - 19:40
longtimegone's picture

>Mulldrifter I think I would rather have as gush, it adds three cards to hand over the 1 that mulldrifter adds.

This reasoning is great in a brainstorm/fetches format, but in my mind, there just aren't nearly enough shuffle effects in pauper for those islands to reliably turn in to real cards, and there isn't any other way to use lands in hand for value.

Have you had different results?

I believe the main value of by Elbinac at Tue, 04/19/2016 - 02:39
Elbinac's picture

I believe the main value of Gush returning Islands is for discarding to the "kill combo" with Tireless Tribe.

I can only assume that since it is a 1-off it was meant as a hedge in the longer matches.
Understandable to some extent given it could take awhile to actually have two Islands in play.
At five mana you are better off on Mulldrifter.

Keep in mind that the Hawks and Wilds will have you shuffling quite a bit and that Brainstorm makes it easier to force a Delver to flip.

The synergies are there, it just isn't all that strong when you can be facing a turn two Angler or worse across the table.

Though you do have some potential to match Infect nut draws with T1 Tribe into T2 Inside Out..

it's just a personal thing. by JXClaytor at Tue, 04/19/2016 - 08:45
JXClaytor's picture

it's just a personal thing. dislike 1 ofs :D

The turn 2 kill is super nice.

I don't think I have, I'm by JXClaytor at Tue, 04/19/2016 - 08:44
JXClaytor's picture

I don't think I have, I'm just real wary of 1 ofs. Like you rarely see them enough to matter, and I would rather have things more uniform, if that makes any sense.

The reason for 1 ofs is a bit by Paul Leicht at Tue, 04/19/2016 - 16:05
Paul Leicht's picture

The reason for 1 ofs is a bit obscure but is sensible for some decks. If you have it in your deck, it is an out. No matter how long it takes you will eventually draw it if you are stuck in a grindy no win situation. But with 2 or 3 it becomes a card you will either want to cut or have more of.

I agree that 1 ofs are dangerous if you are counting on a top deck and you have a clock against you. It is not good to plan for an out that is unlikely to happen.

The best reason for 1 ofs is as silver bullets when you have a reliable way to fetch them. But even then a stray mill or exile effect or counter spell can stop it before it has any effect. So there is always some risk inherent in it. And if you draw your 1 of when you need it to be in your deck to be fetched to the battlefield that's even worse.

So that's the theory, which I am certain you know already. The question is what parts of it apply to this deck?

I'm personally not by Elbinac at Tue, 04/19/2016 - 18:19
Elbinac's picture

I'm personally not particularly keen of 1-offs either, singleton formats not withstanding, but I understand there are niche situations where they have merit.

That I am not sure of. My by JXClaytor at Wed, 04/20/2016 - 01:14
JXClaytor's picture

That I am not sure of. My experience with this deck is not as broad as I would like it to be.