"We're here because you are looking for the best of the best of the best, sir!"
In the comments section of last week's Recap, deluxeicoff indicated a desire to identify the top 8 decks and the best players of those decks, and then run a tournament. There are a number of intriguing aspects in this proposal from what decks are best to the structure of the event to what conclusions may eventually be drawn from the event.
First, I am going to focus on the archetypes rather than their pilots, as the players involved would be dependent on availability and interest. In the original comment, deluxeicoff identified Storm, Goblins, and Teachings. I responded that Teachings should be replaced with Blue/Black Control because Mystical Teachings does not show up in many of the versions that currently reaching the Top 8 of the PE. I also thought Stompy should be added.
That identifies four decks, with Affinity and Mono-Blue Control as obvious inclusions for two of the remaining four slots. Affinity has always been relevant in the Pauper metagame and continues to perform well. Mono-Blue Control, especially the Fae variation, has been a big bully recently.
The last two slots are much more difficult. Which is more important, recent performance or historical relevance? Personally, although it has not done well in the past few months, I think White Weenie is a valid inclusion given its solid to stellar performances from late January through May 2010. That is an extended period of performance that shows the strength of this deck.
No single deck stands out as a surefire inclusion for the eighth slot. Esper Control, Team America, and Blue/Red Aggro Control appear to be the next tier of decks. Esper Control and Team America are actually very similar archetypes based around enters the battlefield effects and reusing these abilities through Momentary Blink and Kor Skyfisher. Of these two, Team America has more recent success with three top 8 finishes in June, but Esper Control has far more top 8 finishes this year, won the PE on March 26 and April 16, and had one top 8 finish at the beginning of June.
My proposed top 8: Goblins, Mono-Blue Control, Affinity, Storm, White Weenie, Blue/Black Control, Stompy, and Esper Control. Alternatively, we could mimic the NCAA basketball tournament with a play-in match between Esper Control and Team America for the eighth slot.
The format of the tournament will dictate the conclusions that can be drawn for this exercise. A single-elimination bracket tournament simply means that the outcome will be constrained by luck and the construction of various sideboards. In a PE, players can focus their sideboards to weight the slot usage to handle both a deck's weak matchups and what is expected to be the most common decks in the format, when eight different archetypes are expected to be present in equal numbers, the format prediction skills of the players will be be eliminated.
Do players use the same deck and sideboard list for every matchup or can they alter their sideboard before each match? While a round-robin tournament more clearly illustrate the which deck is superior, the time commitment for such an approach may prevent some pilots for participating? If single elimination, do players know the bracket before they build their decks?
Are they decks based on top performers from the PE or are they the creation of their pilots? Many archetypes have some substantial variations, for instance Affinity decks vary between that use Krark-Clan Shaman and Disciple of the Vault and those that stick to creatures with Affinity, and both builds have performed well.
I would recommend that the tournament be conducted in double elimination. That means that a deck with one ludicrously bad matchup will not be eliminated to an unfortunate pairing, but it also constrains the tournament length. I would also allow each pilot to build their version of the archetype they are piloting. Finally, I would say that the deck and sideboard cannot change throughout the tournament. This would better illustrate which deck in its base build rather as decks cannot be tuned between rounds of a real tournament.
The exercise is interesting. With double elimination, there would be fourteen or fifteen matches, dependent on whether the overall winner went undefeated or lost a single match. If the winner of each match received $1 to $2 credit from a sponsor, the total sponsorship would be reasonable while offering an incentive for targeted players to participate.
If deluxeicoff pulls this together, I strongly hope for detailed descriptions of each game. Ideally, those descriptions would come from an independent observer discussing both what is occurring on the battlefield and what options each player may have available to them based on their deck contents. This would highlight how a particular build of a deck can or cannot deal with particular problems that they might be facing.

For those of you who tend towards the casual side of Pauper, this section presents a deck I have been using in the casual room. My latest toy is a Blue/Red Aggro-Control deck using Skred with snow-covered lands. Sea Gate Oracle, Mulldrifter, and Think Twice provide substantial card draw. Staggershock, Firebolt, and Steamcore Weird (with Dream Stalker's help) provide repetitive damage dealing for additional card advantage. Skred and Counterspell are used judiciosly against threats that are not easily eliminated by inflicting two damage.
The deck can be a bit inefficient at killing creatures with three or four toughness, especially flyers. Kor Skyfisher, Aven Riftwatcher, and Spire Golem require two sources of damage to remove unless you have an Errant Ephemeron in play. This of course means that if something prevents the second source of damage, then the first source of damage was wasted.
I know the cost of snow-covered lands takes decks out of the budget limits of some player's (a Snow-Covered Island is currently going for $0.20 and a Snow-Covered Mountain is priced at $0.25), especially because there are other cost-effective options to replace Skred such as Lightning Bolt or Electrostatic Bolt. So, make adjustments according to your budget, or come back next week when I share my version of Blue/Red Control without the snow-covered lands.
If you wish to try this deck out in matches instead of duels, Gorilla Shaman, Disrupt, Hydroblast, Pyroblast, Martyr of Ashes, and Hurly-Burly are all viable options for the sideboard.

This will be an occassional inclusion when a card strikes me as relevant to a current deck or environment.
With the recent dominance of Mono-Blue Control, especially the Fae variation, and the number of players bringing it to the weekly PE, it would seem that a means to deal with the various faeries with a mere 1 toughness would be a justifiable sideboard inclusion. As many of the MUC/faerie decks include a mere three copies of Echoing Truth as their only bounce spells, getting an enchantment like Dizzying Gaze into play on a creature means that the deck will have an affordable and repetitive means of dealing with virtually every threat that MUC/faeries will place on the battlefield.
In addition to simply reducing the productivity of Spellstutter Sprite, elimination of flying threats will inhibit MUC/faeries ability to ninjitsu in a Ninja of the Deep Hours, forcing the opponent to bypass the easy card draw or hardcast the ninja. Eliminating a Spellstutter Sprite or Pestermite before it can be recycled with the ninja prevents your other spells from being countered and keeps your creatures from being locked down.
In addition, this enchantment may work against other flying threats such as Aven Riftwatcher and Kor Skyfisher in various Team America, Esper Control, and White Weenie variants. Even though many Stompy decks run Scryb Sprites, Dizzying Gaze probably isn't worth sideboarding in for that match-up.
|

|

Pauper is a straightforward environment. It allows for deck construction using only cards that have been printed as common on MTGO (note that this means that some cards printed as common in paper Magic are not legal in Pauper and that some cards have been printed as common Online, but never in paper, and these are legal). The banned list for Classic Pauper is very manageable and consists of exactly one card:
Each week there are three regular Classic Pauper events. Wizards of the Coast hosts a weekly Pauper Challenge Premier Event. The Pauper Challenge is currently paying prizes in Magic 2010 booster packs:
Place |
Prizes |
QPs |
1st |
30 Magic 2010 booster packs |
3 |
2nd |
20 Magic 2010 booster packs |
3 |
3rd - 4th |
12 Magic 2010 booster packs |
3 |
5th - 8th |
6 Magic 2010 booster packs |
3 |
9th - 16th |
3 Magic 2010 booster packs |
0 |
The next Pauper Challenge Premier Event will be held:
- Saturday July 17, 2010 at 5PM EDT
- Sunday July 25, 2010 at 11AM EDT
In addition to the Pauper Challenge, there are currently two player run events using the Classic Pauper format. The first is the Tuesday Pauper Deck Challenge (or TPDC), which is held on Tuesdays at 7:30 PM EST. The second is the European Pauper Deck Challenge (or EPDC), which is held on Thursdays at 3:30 PM EST.
Note that EPDC is on hiatus while a search for a new permanent host is underway for season 2. If you are interested in volunteering to be the host, please check here.
3 Comments
rockin start. With regards to the tournament in question - I really think it would be easiest and best if all 8 players knew the field they were facing, then had to use the same sideboard for every matchup. Maindecked changes should be closely watched - a slight change up from a top 8 listing is ok, but no major archetype shifts etc.., Each deck is going to have a bad matchup of the other seven, this is a major point :)
If this is to go forward, let's decide on that last spot. I agree with you that WW is a good 7th slot. Once the top 8 decks are identified, perhaps a vote could happen next posting of this for the players of each said thing...or not. If this fizzles, (which murphy's law says it should as there are so many variables) I won't be surprised, but it would be a grand experiement, that could perhaps be revisited each year.
First of all, I would say that the old style of banners is much better. Full color backgrounds make the graphic too hard to look at.
Now about the article: I think you can do better. There is hardly any new content here and there is no analysis at all - just stats and decklists. Why don't you try to address the mono-color trend? I also think your archetype list badly needs to be trimmed. Just by reading your article I can tell that "Team America" is a version of UW blink that splashes red. Are the decks so different that you need to include both? The same applies to Esper control and a couple others.
Thanks for the input on the backgrounds. I will see what everyone else says and go with the majority. I will the bolder graphic as I thnk the Mono-Black Control and Team America charts look better. Goblins looks just as bad as the original chart, and both versions looked bad because it is hard to find large versions for the art for goblins which mono-chromatic.
As for new content, each week will include updats to the charts and deck lists as well as a perspective, casual deck, and potentially discussion of a card which stands out to me. If this isn't sufficient new content, then I doubt the Recap is what you are looking for.
That being said, I agree that the discussion of the performance and advantages of mono-colored decks is a worthy topic of interest. Expect to see this is the Perspective for the recap of the past PE.
On the topic of archetypes, this is something I covered in a previous Recap. The breakdown of archetypes is a rather personal perspective of when the differentiation between two decks constitutes a difference in different archetypes. I think Team America is something between Blue/Red Aggro-Control and Blue/White Blink, but all three have overlap and different versions within the archetypes overlap more than others. It is definitely a fine line as I group Blue/Black control that splashes white for one spells or sidebaord cards as different than Esper control that includes a substantial amount of white spells.
For now, I expect these archetypes stand, but that doesn't mean I am unwilling to reevaluate moving forward.