Since the sanctioning of Pauper, there have been two Premier Events. These events, held nearly two months apart with very different metagames expected, produced the same ultimate result: MBC won. This is not surprising as Black has many of the tools necessary to combat the many threats of Pauper. It has discard to stall control and combo, removal to defeat creatures, and life gain to counter burn decks. It is this middle child that has caused the biggest ruckus, as MBC has access to one of the best creatures in Pauper that is not a creature at all: it is a Wrath variant in the form of Crypt Rats. It is not Pauper's only board sweeper, as more conditional ones exist in Martyr of Ashes and Swirling Sandstorm, and smaller versions exist from Wail of the Nim and Evincar's Justice in Black to Holy Light in White and even the highly conditional and rather wear Sandstorm in Green. Yet only Crypt Rats can take out every creature, regardless of size, given a significant mana investment (unless, of course, they have Protection from Black). IN the end, Rats is the closest Pauper is going to get to a Wrath of God for a very long time. On a side note, how much would a common Wrath of God have to cost to be balanced for Limited formats? Is it even a possibility? Would the effect be too strong at say, 4BBBB?

So what's the big deal? Magic has had board sweepers since the first days of the game. Every Block format has some sort of sweeper to help keep creature strategies in check. These cards serve as an important limiting factor, keeping aggressive creature decks in check and forcing people not to over extend.

Then why are some people calling for Crypt Rats to be banned in Pauper?

A few things first: I do not believe that Rats should be banned, as it is an important limiting factor. I also am not a fan of restriction of Rats, for reasons to be enumerated later. But first...story time.

Back when I first started in PDC over four years ago, Affinity was king. The Artifact Lands were restricted when I started, but Cranial Plating ran free. There was also a different banning system in place: every four weeks all players would gather in a chat room to discuss community items and vote on the format (a fantastic idea that has since been replaced by message boards). This meant that if a deck was doing too well, we could examine it immediately. At the time, numerous cards were called to be banned, including the Circles of Protection; needless to say, the format never changed much. Instead, Affinity was the target. You see, with Plating, PDC degenerated into Affinity against Red-Green aggro. RG was the best way to fight Plating early and was able to do it without losing too much to the rogues of the field. Plating was so powerful that decks that just ran a few Artifacts would also run Plating just for the free (Fireblasts) it would give. Seriously, Cranial Plating was like having a free Fireblast, or better, every turn.

The community took Cranial Plating away (and the Artifact Lands were restricted) because they took fun away from the format. Attendance was down and innovation was at a nadir. At the time, PDC was still growing (we maybe had thirty regulars and about six dozen total participants over all events compared to the over 1100 board members we have now).

Plating was also way beyond the power curve for the format. Here is a short list of commons that had not been released at the time that today help limit the power of Affinity: Lightning Bolt, Ancient Grudge, Crypt Rats (irony), Tendrils of Corruption, Oblivion Ring, Tin Street Hooligan, Wickerbough Elder, Fireblast, Last Gasp, Stinkweed Imp, Faith's Fetters and many many more. While these cards do not necessarily attack Plating directly, they help to limit the potential explosiveness of Affinity. Pauper did not have these cards, most of which are not even close to the power level of Plating but again, helped limited the Equipment's effectiveness overall. So for almost three years, these cards were banned.

A little over a year ago, I began advocating for the Artifact Lands to be taken off the restricted list. I argued that Pauper had experienced a flattening of the power level and that the other decks had caught up to Affinity. I wrote about this at length here (insert link). At the time, I had conducted some testing of lists with LulThyme where Plating was unbanned. The results were not pretty, as drawing a Plating correlated to a win a vast majority of the time (and this was before Lotus Petal). We felt (and others agreed), that unleashing Plating on the format would limit the number of viable decks, hurt attendance (which at the time was waning), and create a format of Plating against anti-Plating. As such, we just gave back the lands and while Affinity is certainly a great deck, it is no where near format warping. The Premier Event results have backed this up, as they have adopted the same B & R list as Pauper (thanks to some noise over an out of date FAQ).

So, why the story? It demonstrates, to me at least, why a card should be Banned in Pauper (and any format for that matter).

1) It has to limit creativity. Think about all of the broken formats where cards have been banned. A serious number of otherwise good decks have to be discarded simply because they can not deal with any one strategy. Even at the height of Faerie dominance in recent Standard, there were still a number of lists that did well and had game against the deck. Affinity with Plating, there was only one.

2) It has to limit fun. Magic is a game, and if the game ends when one person draws one card, the is it really fun? I exclude combo here, since usually they have to draw that card at a specific time. Affinity with Plating was a combo deck on turn two (swing for 6 next turn with a Frogmite, oh, and also a 4/4). This, in turn, would lead to a drop in attendance and the overall health of a format.

3) It has to warp deckbuilding around the card. This does not mean that decks have to be built to beat the card, but rather warp themselves to include the card. Look at Skullclamp. Tooth and Nail decks actually included Elves at one point just as a way to easily abuse this Equipment, because one grossly powerful effect was not enough.

This last item is more of a corollary of Equipment in general. These cards tend to be easily abused since they are often colorless and can slide into most decks. At its height, certain decks were actually just running Artifact Lands to get the maximum effect out of Plating. Seriously. Any creature deck at the time ran Skullclamp, and later almost every deck ran Jitte because it was not a strain on the mana. In Pauper, where the mana fixing is relatively weak, this becomes even more important.

This is the background of my opinions of banning cards in Pauper and on banning cards in a format in general. Now, here are some reasons people want to ban the Rats.

First, many feel that it pushes MBC over the edge to “dominant deck status.” By giving the deck access to the best Wrath around that scales along with an abundant resource, it allows the deck to have a defensive speed that matches the major investment of the format in creatures. Since very few Pauper creatures have toughness greater than their casting cost, Rats can act as a counter to any threat played. Unlike most other removal spells in the format, it can also take out multiple threats while knocking out a hefty chunk of life. However, there is a serious (although required) investment and there is no guarantee that the Rats will survive to do their job. Yet this is a conditional Wrath that does not require any additional investment besides playing lands (still for a desired effect you still need to pump your mana into it and you have to be predominantly Swamps to get the most out of it). When it fires off, it can have a devastating effect and when combined with MBC's ability to gain life presents a potent threat. It is this ability to not only wipe the board but the deck's ability to recover from the self-inflicted wounds that people feel make the card too powerful. Advocates of this stance sometimes also advocate that Banning might be too harsh, and Restriction might be the right call. I disagree wholeheartedly, as this will simply make the format even less fun because drawing the one Rats is now a lucksack move.

Another common argument is that Rats creates a unique effect in Pauper. Unlike the other “Wraths,” this one only requires that you play Swamps. You do not have to hold back Red cards or fill your graveyard, or accelerate into some absurd amount of mana to pull off a Rolling Thunder. Just Swamps. This argument, in essence comes down to the fact that Crypt Rats is the only card of its level, just like Wrath was until Damnation rolled around.

Side note: I have always advocated talking about Pauper as a distinct format that does not care about Magic with other rarities, yet I have consistently mentioned Wrath in this piece. The reason is simple: Wrath limits aggro like no amount of point removal can. For the most part, across all colors you will find creatures in the common slot thanks to Limited considerations. Without a significant limiting factor and deterrent to running a creature centric strategy, a format could degenerate into creature battles. Pauper, back when it was PDC, looked like this before Rats entered the fray. Back then, the purest control deck was still MUC, and it ran between twelve and sixteen creatures...that were creatures and not spells like Fathom Seer or specialty blockers like Dream Stalker. Every format needs a way to limit aggro. Rats takes this seat in Pauper. Regardless of what some people think, the other cards that sweep would not get the job done in a way that would limit aggro in a significant way.

Back to the point: with Rats occupying unique slot in the format, while spending the most time in a deck that has topped the format has led many to call for banning. Some of these posters have felt that if every color had a Rats like effect, then Black would have no reason to be on top and everyone could be happy. Of course, then all five versions would need to be banned.

The underlying argument to both these points is that Crypt rats saps the fun out of the format. By limiting creature based strategies, which many on the casual side of Pauper find to be the most fun, Crypt Rats is sucking something out of the format. Pauper, at its inception, was a casual format that over time became refined and competitive until the sanctioning. This, thus far, is the only item which corresponds to one I listed as a reason for banning. However, the end result is different. Fun, as defined in the competitive sense, is driving people away from a format. Affinity was not fun, and attendance suffered. Rebels was not fun, and attendance suffered. Currently, Pauper attendance is through the proverbial roof with demand for more events. If, however, MBC and Crypt Rats drives people away, then this item gains validity. Until then, however, this is simply a matter of people projecting their idea of fun on a format.

Looking at the two items listed, neither meets the minimum threshold of having a card banned. Being a piece of a dominant deck makes a card annoying, for sure, but looking at Crypt Rats, it is perhaps the single most fragile card type in Pauper: Creature. In a format defined by creatures and creature combat, creatures are a permanent that need to be dealt with. Yes, Rats has a potent effect and alters the game state but that is what cards are supposed to do- change the game state. Being good does not warp the format. Instead, it should inform deckbuilding. Rather than staying stagnant, strategies must develop and adapt to combat Crypt Rats. This is not the stifling of creativity, but rather a growing edge for it! Sure, your “traditional” aggro deck might not fare well against Rats, but there are a number of creatures, not just those with Protection from Black, who can combat the Rats (and MBC as a whole). These decks, while altering their composition to combat MBC and Rats, and not warped in doing so. Grizzly Bears have long been solid cards in Pauper aggro and “warping” a deck to include one that just so happens to be resilient to a board sweeper is not ban-worthy- it's metagaming.

Occupying a unique slot in a metagame is not a call for banning. If this were the case, here are two cards that could be banned for such a reason: Counterspell and Lightning Bolt. These cards hold unique slots in the format, doing things at their costs and investments that no other card in Pauper can. By an extension of logic, these cards should be banned under the unique slot principle. Yet, these cards do not deserve to be banned just because they are unique. They are cards that everyone must consider while building a deck, yet do not need to be banned. They are cards that only exist in one color, but are not sop strong that they must be expelled from the format.

Pauper is a healthy and vibrant format. There are very few “broken” cards. While Storm is an incredibly potent ability, the decks, while strong, have yet to prove format warping. Crypt Rats, while strong, is just a card that aggravates people who do not want to change their thoughts about investment. While we should remain diligent in watch for cards that could upset the balance of power in Pauper, currently there are none. Looking forward to the sets to be rereleased online, there are none. In fact, Wizards is so conscious of common power levels for limited consideration, that I do not believe that the Pauper ban list will ever get larger than a single card.

Keep slingin' commons,

-Alex