Welcome to the format! Feel free to poke me in the client if you see me there if you'd like a game, I've written at length about the format for years (Check out "Art of Tribal Wars" in the Puremtgo article search) and would be happy to assist, provide a sounding board or a challenge.
Haakon Knights are pretty decent (think Black/White with some zombie knights in there + discard cards to make Haakon worthwhile.) The interesting thing about the format is that there are so many ways to build decks without running out of ideas.
Token generators have a long history as adjacent to tribal. They are not tribal cards themselves.
The concept of the format is 33% of your deck must be creature cards of a certain type with no sideboard allowed. It is incredibly straightforward and has not changed in those particulars since inception.
The banned list has of course changed but it has been a while since the last update. (I believe the last one was the transition to legacy from classic format.)
Imho having germ generators while an interesting sub theme would not be sufficiently tribal enough (even ignoring the 33% creatures rule) to be interesting though that may change if wotc adds actual germ creatures.
I would not want to see Tribal turn into a format where tokens dominated (they sometimes do even so with Lingering Souls etc. And Batterskull is a fairly difficult to answer card to begin with.
We effectively do have S.N.O.T.: Ever taken an Eidolon of Countless Battles and enchanted it with another? They stick together and empower exponentially.
"trashed" seems a bit like hyperbole imho. I thought people were pretty respectful and kind to you... Commentary used to be a lot more cutting back in the day.
Jmason is one of those long time community members who says what he thinks regardless of how it strikes others. Which is both a positive and a negative. Being tactless can get you a reputation for being calloused (or uncaring) though being known for honest commentary has its own merits.
Personally I think Standard Pauper varies a lot between boring and interesting. When I find it interesting I brew in it. (Though I have never been to mpdc or whatever it is called, I have had some fun/brewing testing with others who do go, like Fliebana.)
Thanks, Bazaar of Baghdad, for your welcoming tone, invitation to play and test a Germ deck for fun (with suggestions for doing it), and for your shared enthusiasm for the game. I can understand the need for conformity to a set of rules, even if these rules may limit overall opportunities in smaller areas.
I think I like Tribal more than anything at the moment. As my login name suggests, I write comic books. Being a stay-at-home husband/father/writer, I want to make the most of my long-time love of the game. Like many players, I took a break from the game while addressing other life priorities, but want to play again for fun.
Now, my kids are growing and have a shared interest in fantasy and science fiction. Playing MtG seemed like a natural solution for quick bursts of fun and time together. Sometimes, my kids want to play LEGOS, or study bugs outside, or (whatever); I can still play MTGO when the kids are asleep or in school. Being newer to general formats, having a particular direction to go makes financial sense, as well as guide my future choices to match a format.
Starting with pauper, I found out quickly that netdecking a top deck is the best way to play. Even if cards were freely given, I don't think I would like to play Delver + Delver + Delver again and again. A few times? Sure. But the format seems to be limited by the dominant types, with rogue decks being very rare and underpowered by the format giants. Tribal, it seems, welcomes rogue decks, and even two popular Elves-themed decks can look very different.
I moved into Standard Pauper, with a limited resource pool. While I found greater success, I still stalled against the top tiers decks in the format. Will my warrior-themed standard pauper deck work? Sometimes...but, as I was playing with the warriors deck, I recalled a few things:
My first card I ever bought was a 4th Ed. Black Knight. I'm sure there was a rare in the pack, and some cool cards, too, but I was transported away by the black knight. His abilities made sense. His casting cost seemed do-able. Knights seemed like a great clarion call to the fantasy format, for me.
My daughters and boy like themes, too. Rather than a bunch of collected pieces to a metagame puzzle, Tribal would allow them to express their individual attractions to fey, zombies, and the rest of a wide format. Aside from some block tribal boons (ie: tribal sorceries or instants, like for merfolk), the format seems very balanced. Yeah, it'll be tough to sleeve-up a 'badger' deck, but this format offers incentives for trying rogue-competitive decks.
While I'm sure I'll see my fair share of elves, merfolk, goblins, etc., the format seems to offer balance and a consideration of imbalance, too. Players seem interested in analysis as well as play. Even if it's my 3rd straight match against elves, I am 1) likely to see different takes on elves (for example: mono-green, mono-black, and dual-colored elves) and 2) reminded that, even if this is the umpteenth elvish deck I face, the pilot across the table from me loves playing with WotC's elves. This is a personal investment into playing the game, not merely netdecking and nerfing the metagame with the latest bomb-rare (or, bomb-common).
Thanks for the advice, and I look forward to seeing you around the forums here. I think Tribal is a place I could feel welcomed and meet my minor needs for themes, inexpensive (yeah, I gotta watch the prices of some tribes) competitive play, and online community. I felt lost in the swirl of sameness for the sake of winning, but like the Tribal format and vibe. Thanks, everyone. I may not always say things well, and even may need an editor to make sure what I think gets across to more people, but you all seem very motivated by Tribal, and welcoming to new players and new, germ-free decks.
ComixWriter, welcome to the format. Mostly for simplicity's sake, and to comply with WotC's classification algorithms, the creature type must be on the typeline itself or it doesn't count. Yes, this leads to odd exclusions and some loss in diversification (Germ would be fun). The gains in simplicity and even rules enforcement are too much. On a casual basis, meet up in the tribal channel this Saturday, and ask around about playtesting a Germ deck you made just for fun using the Legacy format (but the players agree to use Tribal rules apart from counting the non-Germs as Germs).
In your MTGO interface, you can check on the type filter for creature, and then minimize that and open the sub-type filter, marking it for whichever tribe you want. If you do this for Angel for example, you'll see the Angels in your collection without seeing the non-Angel cards that support Angels. If you want to see all such cards instead, just type Angel in the search box. If you want to see cards you don't own also, make sure to set your quantity to 0 first. I hope this helps.
Ouch- just be careful, JMason: when I criticized Alex, I got publically trashed for my ignorance.
Read his reply to a comment I wrote: SpikeBoyM said HE found Standard Pauper boring.
Saying -insert format here- is boring smacks of lazy thinking. Do you have any idea WHY you find it boring? The people who play standard pauper PREs take it very seriously and there's a competitive level of play. No idea why you think Gary is a massive problem, there's several decks favoured against mono black. The current format supports a great RUb build that I will be sorry to see go, and WU is also a great choice.
Modern never really took off in pauper even when PRE was more popular (although extended did have a weekly tournament for a while). I think because there's no real barrier to entry for vintage/classic pauper.
I've enjoyed reading a lot about the Tribal Format. You present a lot of interesting things, including: 1)diverse decks that win or lose, 2) comments about the current state of affairs within your supported format/league, 3) seem motivated to have as level of a playing field with nods to the dominant types and sometimes neglected types. Most other articles seem loyal to their format/league but don't seem to offer newer players much of a Day One advantage by offering special tickets or other prizes. I like what you are doing!
Question: With the various "Living Weapon" Equipment pieces, would "GERM" be a welcomed tribe?
I guess a bigger question would involve how a tribe is considered currently, and if other considerations may be considered. For instance, a current tribal deck requires me to (virtually) sleeve-up at least 20/60 cards, that have the same type (while it'd be a stretch, each Living Equipment does indicate that a Germ creature is created), but how is type defined? Is it just want WotC says on Gatherer?
I am generally asking if a tribal deck could be made without casting creature cards. No, don't go and research everything now to see what valid decks could be made. Let's pretend for now and in future, if I could cast 20/60 cards in my deck that made, I dunno, plant tokens, would you consider this a viable tribal deck, by current interpretation? Again, I don't know if there are enough token generators.
Answering bigger questions like these help guide me in crafting a possible GERM deck and/or a thopter-based deck by using new Origins cards that create thopter tokens without being "thopters" in-and-of themselves, like Aspiring Aeronaut.
Essentially, where on any card can I check to see if it could qualify for tribal? I think there is a great opportunity to expand the format if we are willing to look how a card, as a spell, creates a tribe on the battlefield.
That's what we want, right- to see 20 goblins face 20 elves face 20 thrulls face 20 merfolk face 20 germs? face 20 thopters?
Part of the problem with the infinite combos is that control is hard to build properly with a 25-minute clock, and sometimes a 25-minute clock on top of that, as control is not allowed to optimize its own win cons that are already likely handed by your opponent's removal. I'm not the fastest in the world, so then I'm reduced to combo, ramp (which is a mana combo), or aggro (including midrange). The latter is heavily metagamed against, and maybe dubiously so since I feel most of the lists I've seen should be more proactive. Another problem with choosing a fairer win con is that you can get beat by the unfair ones by other players. Kill or be killed.
At any rate, I begged Kuma a couple of times to ban Top before last week's event, but (if I interpreted him correctly) he is rightly apprehensive of the secondary consequences and decided not to do it. I still think he should, and that banning Altar alone in Pure is not enough; and the combo would still dominate Underdog as the ban list currently stands. Top combo is particularly egregious since it doesn't involve a single creature.
Berlin: I agree that Umbral Mantle (etc.) on the ban list is a cruel joke compared to some of the more problematic combos. Maybe we could get the third-tier tribes to work if we banned the top-50 (top 100?) most played off-tribe cards in Legacy and Modern, updating the list once a year.
But maybe the best way for me to have my Spiders vs. Serpents fix (the "real" tribal) is to do it through a deck contest or column (or both) eventually getting stock, fair lists (however we define fair) for most of the underdog tribes, then finding a play partner willing to run a tournament with me on random nights. It might take a year to round out all the lists, but it could prove fascinating, and would be subject to various re-runs in future years with different results.
Hmmm I am not much of a vorthos but I understood that Temple of Abandon refers to the bacchanalia thrown by the followers of Xenagos (because he is the Theros version of Bacchus.) not because it was abandoned by the dead god's followers. But that is a cool idea.
Xenagos replaced a God killed by Gideon. Temple of ABANDON was the green/red scry land that was abandoned when the r/g god was killed and lost their believers.
Daily Events are available for Classic Pauper tournaments as well as the Tuesday night player-run Pauper Classic Tuesdays sponsored by MTGOTraders. The community over at PCT is really fantastic and welcoming. I recommend it to anyone looking to break into the MTGO format.
Also, to my knowledge, there is no "Modern Pauper" on MTGO. The format is called Classic Pauper. Furthermore, you can play plenty of decks without picking up a playset of Cloud of Faeries, although picking up a playset certainly isn't going to break the bank like picking up a playset of Daze would be.
I won't go over cards to have in each color, but I recommend checking out some of the decklists Alex posts on Facebook from Daily Events to get an idea of what decks are playable and competitive, and purchase your cards based on that.
Hope that helps out a bit and I'm sure Alex and other Pauper folks can add to what I've started.
Thanks,guys!I feel the same. I see no sense in making a 3rd group of tribes, when the real problem are those infinite combos, that deny a 'tribal game', the tribes doesn't matter at all then. That's even worse than: 'Friends of Spiders vs. Friends of Serpents! Which is still within the parameters of a tribal environment - creature vs. creature - , although a bit unfair, because the tribes mostly doesn't matter much either.
At the moment I see no other way than expanding the ban list, to eliminate those 'untribal' infinite combos.
Umbral Mantle is banned, but those are not!?!
If you really want to make 3 groups, then all non-tribe creatures should be banned to make really 'spiders vs serpents', but then it's close to Pure...
As usual, a great analysis of the format. Thanks for referencing Standard Pauper and distinguishing it from (modern) pauper-at-large.
You're right, too, Alex - Standard Pauper is boring. Hence, I'm quitting the format. Gary + Gary is just ... unimaginative.
What kind of tournaments does MTGO have (even player ran) for pauper-at-large? Is it the modern card pool, or any other distinguishing restrictions/barriers to access? If I jump into modern pauper, will I be chastised for NOT having, oh, how about a full playset of Cloud of Faeries?
What, in your mind, are the absolute necessary cards to have in a collection for competitive (not just casual) play in 1) white, 2) black, 3) blue, etc.? Please feel free to link these references from past articles (I may have missed).
I would probably join if that last thought (flusterstorm is your best friend, ie: necessary) wasn't so true. I hate the fact that Vintage is so dominated by counters. I don't mind playing them or that others play them but I hate the idea that every game boils down to counter wars or hoping to dodge counters or hoping to dodge the taxes that make countering difficult.
It isn't like I don't have the cards. I just stopped enjoying the play experience.
I meant to do that actually, but time has been a bit of an issue as of late. I'll talk to Steve about which decks have been getting it.
I looked at the prizes again, and it is actually pretty good considering it's free.
I'd suggest anyone who has even close to a Vintage deck to check it out. The format isn't as scary as people think, just get some games in in the TP room and it makes more sense. Like Flusterstorm is your best friend, and basic lands are really good in the sideboard. Those things seem odd until you play it a bit.
A suggestion would be to showcase the Non-Powered decks that do well in the event. Not sure if one shows up each week or not, but showing off the Non-Powered decks might inspire somebody to make them and jump into the PRE? Probably worth a shot!
I also agree. As I said last week: "One problem with watering down the tribes, however, is that the non-tribal cards come more to the forefront in importance." I still think Spiders vs. Serpents is, at its essence, more interesting than the heavily-played Elves vs. Goblins (or what have you). The question is how to bring that about without the former matchup reducing itself to Friends of Spiders vs. Friends of Serpents. We're all puzzle lovers and we should all focus on that question.
There are various tries: a really long, well manicured ban list; a card pool restriction like no non-tribal rares, no non-tribal extended-only cards, no non-Heirloom cards; or importing the pure list onto underdog; or banning non-tribal removal. Other than a long ban list, which I'm game for, but many find annoying, I'm not sure I have an answer yet.
But if we're going to pretend that Spiders and Serpents will never be competitive, as is, I still think then we should limit the Major Leagues to the decks that can be competitive with Elves and Goblins. Bring all decks except those ~13 decks back down, even if we don't create a third tier.
Kuma, on a more narrow point, I've gone 7-1 with Shaman with its terrific support for Dark Depths combo. I'm confident I would have good chances of winning again, if my main matchups are watered-down tribes. Shaman has an amazing toolbox. 4- and 5-star creatures include: Burning Tree Emissary, new Chandra, Cunning Sparkmage, Deathright Shaman, Doran, Elvish Visionary, Elvish Warden, Eternal Witness, Fauna Shaman, Fulminator Mage, Guttersnipe, Herald of the Pantheon, Kiki-Jiki, Martyr of Ashes, Master of the Wild Hunt, Reclamation Sage, Sakura-Tribe Elder, Spikeshot Elder, Tasigur, Thrun, Troll Ascetic, Ulvenwald Tracker, Veampiric Hexmage, Vampiric Nighthawk, Woodfall Primus, Young Pyromancer, and so many other role players. I've probably missed some. Absolutely a powerful tribe that can go many directions.
Standard might remain as popular has ever but Modern as suffered a lot. The dailies have much less players than before. I don't know about Legacy or Pauper and Vintage also feels like it took a hit.
Welcome to the format! Feel free to poke me in the client if you see me there if you'd like a game, I've written at length about the format for years (Check out "Art of Tribal Wars" in the Puremtgo article search) and would be happy to assist, provide a sounding board or a challenge.
Haakon Knights are pretty decent (think Black/White with some zombie knights in there + discard cards to make Haakon worthwhile.) The interesting thing about the format is that there are so many ways to build decks without running out of ideas.
Token generators have a long history as adjacent to tribal. They are not tribal cards themselves.
The concept of the format is 33% of your deck must be creature cards of a certain type with no sideboard allowed. It is incredibly straightforward and has not changed in those particulars since inception.
The banned list has of course changed but it has been a while since the last update. (I believe the last one was the transition to legacy from classic format.)
Imho having germ generators while an interesting sub theme would not be sufficiently tribal enough (even ignoring the 33% creatures rule) to be interesting though that may change if wotc adds actual germ creatures.
I would not want to see Tribal turn into a format where tokens dominated (they sometimes do even so with Lingering Souls etc. And Batterskull is a fairly difficult to answer card to begin with.
We effectively do have S.N.O.T.: Ever taken an Eidolon of Countless Battles and enchanted it with another? They stick together and empower exponentially.
"trashed" seems a bit like hyperbole imho. I thought people were pretty respectful and kind to you... Commentary used to be a lot more cutting back in the day.
Jmason is one of those long time community members who says what he thinks regardless of how it strikes others. Which is both a positive and a negative. Being tactless can get you a reputation for being calloused (or uncaring) though being known for honest commentary has its own merits.
Personally I think Standard Pauper varies a lot between boring and interesting. When I find it interesting I brew in it. (Though I have never been to mpdc or whatever it is called, I have had some fun/brewing testing with others who do go, like Fliebana.)
Thanks, Bazaar of Baghdad, for your welcoming tone, invitation to play and test a Germ deck for fun (with suggestions for doing it), and for your shared enthusiasm for the game. I can understand the need for conformity to a set of rules, even if these rules may limit overall opportunities in smaller areas.
I think I like Tribal more than anything at the moment. As my login name suggests, I write comic books. Being a stay-at-home husband/father/writer, I want to make the most of my long-time love of the game. Like many players, I took a break from the game while addressing other life priorities, but want to play again for fun.
Now, my kids are growing and have a shared interest in fantasy and science fiction. Playing MtG seemed like a natural solution for quick bursts of fun and time together. Sometimes, my kids want to play LEGOS, or study bugs outside, or (whatever); I can still play MTGO when the kids are asleep or in school. Being newer to general formats, having a particular direction to go makes financial sense, as well as guide my future choices to match a format.
Starting with pauper, I found out quickly that netdecking a top deck is the best way to play. Even if cards were freely given, I don't think I would like to play Delver + Delver + Delver again and again. A few times? Sure. But the format seems to be limited by the dominant types, with rogue decks being very rare and underpowered by the format giants. Tribal, it seems, welcomes rogue decks, and even two popular Elves-themed decks can look very different.
I moved into Standard Pauper, with a limited resource pool. While I found greater success, I still stalled against the top tiers decks in the format. Will my warrior-themed standard pauper deck work? Sometimes...but, as I was playing with the warriors deck, I recalled a few things:
My first card I ever bought was a 4th Ed. Black Knight. I'm sure there was a rare in the pack, and some cool cards, too, but I was transported away by the black knight. His abilities made sense. His casting cost seemed do-able. Knights seemed like a great clarion call to the fantasy format, for me.
My daughters and boy like themes, too. Rather than a bunch of collected pieces to a metagame puzzle, Tribal would allow them to express their individual attractions to fey, zombies, and the rest of a wide format. Aside from some block tribal boons (ie: tribal sorceries or instants, like for merfolk), the format seems very balanced. Yeah, it'll be tough to sleeve-up a 'badger' deck, but this format offers incentives for trying rogue-competitive decks.
While I'm sure I'll see my fair share of elves, merfolk, goblins, etc., the format seems to offer balance and a consideration of imbalance, too. Players seem interested in analysis as well as play. Even if it's my 3rd straight match against elves, I am 1) likely to see different takes on elves (for example: mono-green, mono-black, and dual-colored elves) and 2) reminded that, even if this is the umpteenth elvish deck I face, the pilot across the table from me loves playing with WotC's elves. This is a personal investment into playing the game, not merely netdecking and nerfing the metagame with the latest bomb-rare (or, bomb-common).
Thanks for the advice, and I look forward to seeing you around the forums here. I think Tribal is a place I could feel welcomed and meet my minor needs for themes, inexpensive (yeah, I gotta watch the prices of some tribes) competitive play, and online community. I felt lost in the swirl of sameness for the sake of winning, but like the Tribal format and vibe. Thanks, everyone. I may not always say things well, and even may need an editor to make sure what I think gets across to more people, but you all seem very motivated by Tribal, and welcoming to new players and new, germ-free decks.
ComixWriter, welcome to the format. Mostly for simplicity's sake, and to comply with WotC's classification algorithms, the creature type must be on the typeline itself or it doesn't count. Yes, this leads to odd exclusions and some loss in diversification (Germ would be fun). The gains in simplicity and even rules enforcement are too much. On a casual basis, meet up in the tribal channel this Saturday, and ask around about playtesting a Germ deck you made just for fun using the Legacy format (but the players agree to use Tribal rules apart from counting the non-Germs as Germs).
In your MTGO interface, you can check on the type filter for creature, and then minimize that and open the sub-type filter, marking it for whichever tribe you want. If you do this for Angel for example, you'll see the Angels in your collection without seeing the non-Angel cards that support Angels. If you want to see all such cards instead, just type Angel in the search box. If you want to see cards you don't own also, make sure to set your quantity to 0 first. I hope this helps.
Ouch- just be careful, JMason: when I criticized Alex, I got publically trashed for my ignorance.
Read his reply to a comment I wrote: SpikeBoyM said HE found Standard Pauper boring.
Thanks for clarifying, totally had no idea
Saying -insert format here- is boring smacks of lazy thinking. Do you have any idea WHY you find it boring? The people who play standard pauper PREs take it very seriously and there's a competitive level of play. No idea why you think Gary is a massive problem, there's several decks favoured against mono black. The current format supports a great RUb build that I will be sorry to see go, and WU is also a great choice.
Modern never really took off in pauper even when PRE was more popular (although extended did have a weekly tournament for a while). I think because there's no real barrier to entry for vintage/classic pauper.
Anyway, I hope you find a format you enjoy.
I've enjoyed reading a lot about the Tribal Format. You present a lot of interesting things, including: 1)diverse decks that win or lose, 2) comments about the current state of affairs within your supported format/league, 3) seem motivated to have as level of a playing field with nods to the dominant types and sometimes neglected types. Most other articles seem loyal to their format/league but don't seem to offer newer players much of a Day One advantage by offering special tickets or other prizes. I like what you are doing!
Question: With the various "Living Weapon" Equipment pieces, would "GERM" be a welcomed tribe?
I guess a bigger question would involve how a tribe is considered currently, and if other considerations may be considered. For instance, a current tribal deck requires me to (virtually) sleeve-up at least 20/60 cards, that have the same type (while it'd be a stretch, each Living Equipment does indicate that a Germ creature is created), but how is type defined? Is it just want WotC says on Gatherer?
I am generally asking if a tribal deck could be made without casting creature cards. No, don't go and research everything now to see what valid decks could be made. Let's pretend for now and in future, if I could cast 20/60 cards in my deck that made, I dunno, plant tokens, would you consider this a viable tribal deck, by current interpretation? Again, I don't know if there are enough token generators.
Answering bigger questions like these help guide me in crafting a possible GERM deck and/or a thopter-based deck by using new Origins cards that create thopter tokens without being "thopters" in-and-of themselves, like Aspiring Aeronaut.
Essentially, where on any card can I check to see if it could qualify for tribal? I think there is a great opportunity to expand the format if we are willing to look how a card, as a spell, creates a tribe on the battlefield.
That's what we want, right- to see 20 goblins face 20 elves face 20 thrulls face 20 merfolk face 20 germs? face 20 thopters?
Part of the problem with the infinite combos is that control is hard to build properly with a 25-minute clock, and sometimes a 25-minute clock on top of that, as control is not allowed to optimize its own win cons that are already likely handed by your opponent's removal. I'm not the fastest in the world, so then I'm reduced to combo, ramp (which is a mana combo), or aggro (including midrange). The latter is heavily metagamed against, and maybe dubiously so since I feel most of the lists I've seen should be more proactive. Another problem with choosing a fairer win con is that you can get beat by the unfair ones by other players. Kill or be killed.
At any rate, I begged Kuma a couple of times to ban Top before last week's event, but (if I interpreted him correctly) he is rightly apprehensive of the secondary consequences and decided not to do it. I still think he should, and that banning Altar alone in Pure is not enough; and the combo would still dominate Underdog as the ban list currently stands. Top combo is particularly egregious since it doesn't involve a single creature.
Berlin: I agree that Umbral Mantle (etc.) on the ban list is a cruel joke compared to some of the more problematic combos. Maybe we could get the third-tier tribes to work if we banned the top-50 (top 100?) most played off-tribe cards in Legacy and Modern, updating the list once a year.
But maybe the best way for me to have my Spiders vs. Serpents fix (the "real" tribal) is to do it through a deck contest or column (or both) eventually getting stock, fair lists (however we define fair) for most of the underdog tribes, then finding a play partner willing to run a tournament with me on random nights. It might take a year to round out all the lists, but it could prove fascinating, and would be subject to various re-runs in future years with different results.
Hmmm I am not much of a vorthos but I understood that Temple of Abandon refers to the bacchanalia thrown by the followers of Xenagos (because he is the Theros version of Bacchus.) not because it was abandoned by the dead god's followers. But that is a cool idea.
Xenagos replaced a God killed by Gideon. Temple of ABANDON was the green/red scry land that was abandoned when the r/g god was killed and lost their believers.
Daily Events are available for Classic Pauper tournaments as well as the Tuesday night player-run Pauper Classic Tuesdays sponsored by MTGOTraders. The community over at PCT is really fantastic and welcoming. I recommend it to anyone looking to break into the MTGO format.
Also, to my knowledge, there is no "Modern Pauper" on MTGO. The format is called Classic Pauper. Furthermore, you can play plenty of decks without picking up a playset of Cloud of Faeries, although picking up a playset certainly isn't going to break the bank like picking up a playset of Daze would be.
I won't go over cards to have in each color, but I recommend checking out some of the decklists Alex posts on Facebook from Daily Events to get an idea of what decks are playable and competitive, and purchase your cards based on that.
Hope that helps out a bit and I'm sure Alex and other Pauper folks can add to what I've started.
Thanks,guys!I feel the same. I see no sense in making a 3rd group of tribes, when the real problem are those infinite combos, that deny a 'tribal game', the tribes doesn't matter at all then. That's even worse than: 'Friends of Spiders vs. Friends of Serpents! Which is still within the parameters of a tribal environment - creature vs. creature - , although a bit unfair, because the tribes mostly doesn't matter much either.
At the moment I see no other way than expanding the ban list, to eliminate those 'untribal' infinite combos.
Umbral Mantle is banned, but those are not!?!
If you really want to make 3 groups, then all non-tribe creatures should be banned to make really 'spiders vs serpents', but then it's close to Pure...
As usual, a great analysis of the format. Thanks for referencing Standard Pauper and distinguishing it from (modern) pauper-at-large.
You're right, too, Alex - Standard Pauper is boring. Hence, I'm quitting the format. Gary + Gary is just ... unimaginative.
What kind of tournaments does MTGO have (even player ran) for pauper-at-large? Is it the modern card pool, or any other distinguishing restrictions/barriers to access? If I jump into modern pauper, will I be chastised for NOT having, oh, how about a full playset of Cloud of Faeries?
What, in your mind, are the absolute necessary cards to have in a collection for competitive (not just casual) play in 1) white, 2) black, 3) blue, etc.? Please feel free to link these references from past articles (I may have missed).
Thanks in advance!
Ahhhh, prowess and delve, good point.
I would probably join if that last thought (flusterstorm is your best friend, ie: necessary) wasn't so true. I hate the fact that Vintage is so dominated by counters. I don't mind playing them or that others play them but I hate the idea that every game boils down to counter wars or hoping to dodge counters or hoping to dodge the taxes that make countering difficult.
It isn't like I don't have the cards. I just stopped enjoying the play experience.
I meant to do that actually, but time has been a bit of an issue as of late. I'll talk to Steve about which decks have been getting it.
I looked at the prizes again, and it is actually pretty good considering it's free.
I'd suggest anyone who has even close to a Vintage deck to check it out. The format isn't as scary as people think, just get some games in in the TP room and it makes more sense. Like Flusterstorm is your best friend, and basic lands are really good in the sideboard. Those things seem odd until you play it a bit.
Hey, Joe, great stuff as always!
A suggestion would be to showcase the Non-Powered decks that do well in the event. Not sure if one shows up each week or not, but showing off the Non-Powered decks might inspire somebody to make them and jump into the PRE? Probably worth a shot!
I also agree. As I said last week: "One problem with watering down the tribes, however, is that the non-tribal cards come more to the forefront in importance." I still think Spiders vs. Serpents is, at its essence, more interesting than the heavily-played Elves vs. Goblins (or what have you). The question is how to bring that about without the former matchup reducing itself to Friends of Spiders vs. Friends of Serpents. We're all puzzle lovers and we should all focus on that question.
There are various tries: a really long, well manicured ban list; a card pool restriction like no non-tribal rares, no non-tribal extended-only cards, no non-Heirloom cards; or importing the pure list onto underdog; or banning non-tribal removal. Other than a long ban list, which I'm game for, but many find annoying, I'm not sure I have an answer yet.
But if we're going to pretend that Spiders and Serpents will never be competitive, as is, I still think then we should limit the Major Leagues to the decks that can be competitive with Elves and Goblins. Bring all decks except those ~13 decks back down, even if we don't create a third tier.
Kuma, on a more narrow point, I've gone 7-1 with Shaman with its terrific support for Dark Depths combo. I'm confident I would have good chances of winning again, if my main matchups are watered-down tribes. Shaman has an amazing toolbox. 4- and 5-star creatures include: Burning Tree Emissary, new Chandra, Cunning Sparkmage, Deathright Shaman, Doran, Elvish Visionary, Elvish Warden, Eternal Witness, Fauna Shaman, Fulminator Mage, Guttersnipe, Herald of the Pantheon, Kiki-Jiki, Martyr of Ashes, Master of the Wild Hunt, Reclamation Sage, Sakura-Tribe Elder, Spikeshot Elder, Tasigur, Thrun, Troll Ascetic, Ulvenwald Tracker, Veampiric Hexmage, Vampiric Nighthawk, Woodfall Primus, Young Pyromancer, and so many other role players. I've probably missed some. Absolutely a powerful tribe that can go many directions.
I'm also happy to test with you. If I'm online, message me and we can play.
Standard might remain as popular has ever but Modern as suffered a lot. The dailies have much less players than before. I don't know about Legacy or Pauper and Vintage also feels like it took a hit.
Lie is too strong, apologize for that.
For something to come back it has to have been there before, which these Leagues havent.