This has always been my issue with it. Testing decks is difficult. Perhaps those interested in the format should maintain a regular chat presence on MTGO.
I'm really interested in any format that lets me play Cloudposts, but I am wondering where I can play this format? For Pauper I use the constructed open play tournament practice to play practice games. What is the equivalent or can I only play in tournaments?
What stood out to me the most from your comment was this:
"What happens when I cycle through a very, very familiar deck list again, and again, and again, and see the same decks tossed at my head? To me, this is boring."
Maybe at the root of everything is that you just don't like competitive Magic, pauper or otherwise? I feel the same way about it -- it's (for the most part) just a bunch of netdecking and grinding. Maybe you should do what I do and just play casually, ignoring all concerns about metagame and high-ticket cards?
Yes, there are some bullies who spoil the "just for fun" room by playing tournament-tier decks, but by and large you will run into like-minded folks with creative ideas. The diversity is quite great in non-pauper formats, not to mention, a casual legacy deck will cost significantly less than a tournament pauper deck, since most non-tournament rares are just 1 to 2 cents nowadays.
Give it a try! And uh, if you ever need dozens of ideas to get your creative juices flowing, I have a few articles on the subject :)
Personally my definition of a good word count is when I (finally) run out of things to talk about. (Typically that's well over 5k words.) But you should do whatever makes you happy. You will find that you will receive very little in the way of direction here. People may indeed give suggestions about what they like/don't like but deadlines are not a thing here as far as I can tell (6 years and counting of articles here and I've yet to have one to meet.)
The main thing is, write to please yourself first and then those you wish to reach. Well that's my humble $02.
I see that a longer comment let me get points across better. After re-reading my original post to Alex in this thread, I apologize, because I can see how it can seem attacking. This is not my intent. I do expect more from writers, but cannot accept the difficulties of writing as an excuse for any published content, using my own background and experience as an award-winning author myself.
To this end, I propose something. Yup, I know about SOME of the Standard Pauper metagame, but mostly through Gwyned, which is why I actually visit this site in the first place. For MTGO, I'm still VERY raw. If I were to propose an article about NEW players to Pauper, introducing new players to the easiest-to-get-into format- standard, would we have an audience? With the largest card pool set to rotate in a month, we could look at what cards poised for post-rotation play may work. For example, a white Warriors-based deck makes a lot of sense. Like this: http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/wwarriors-standard-pauper-post-rotation-f...
Additionally, I could write to attract help in making a definitive side board. This is my weakest strategy in the game, mostly because of how many cards rotate in and out as threats. I'd accept flares and jeers in the comments for my deck AND sideboard submissions.
Since this would be an appeal to newer players, we can discuss the strengths of certain colors, and how well this is reflected in the current standard card pull. As an added bonus for reading, I would suggest a "Dear Santa" wish list for new players needing competitive cards. My suggested cards to obtain (buy/trade/open) would at least make it through Christmas-time for rotation. For example, I think few people would balk at adding a playset of Pacifism in the current metagame featuring big beats and some unblockable critters.
I write from home (and thanks for the cool comments about the comic book!), so could even offer a mini-challenge each week. If someone thinks they can beat my suggested deck, or wants to try a counter-solution, we invite them to play me at HIGH NOON on, I dunno, a random day of the week not in direct competition with any other scheduled events. This allows me to gloat over victories, or eat humble pie in front of fans visiting the site. Either way, new players can learn from my mistakes as a self-proclaimed amateur trying to make an enjoyable and accessible format more fun.
A week of "White" introduces players to what the color is SUPPOSED to do, and how well that is reflected by card examples. Throughout the week, I'll build on the format and color possibilities, likely selecting one or more cards around which to build a deck. I'll make the deck list, and ask for suggestions. Then, I'll play the deck online and report the results. A quick write up of the matches played, with reflections, nets us a third article in a week: intro/design/playtest report. Word count could easily be something digestible as 400-600/500/200+ for these articles, or about 1,200 worth of writing words for a hobby per week. It may take me some time to ramp up to the speed, but how many words did I write in this post as I rambled?
Take a break for a week. Following decks would be each other week, using blue, black, green, red, and maybe even colorless (the new set already suggests how colorless may be an impact, but remains to be seen how much at the common-rarity level). If you see the tappedout.net link, you'll see that I'm already going to put my money where my mouth is, and host an open-challenge.
Now, is this something that would be welcomed as a contribution? Sound off in the comments section if you like the idea, how it can be improved, or where I went off the rails!
This is quite the detailed comment, and your comic book accomplishment is pretty awesome! I'm going to pass by a few of your comments, because well, I grew up watching Jordan and he never dunked from the three point line, unless I was playing NBA Jam, and Barry Bonds never really hit a home run with his shoe (performance enhancing drugs not withstanding of course) and Manning never did that quarterbacking stuff.
The greats in sports, just like the greats in writing, or just about anything else are mortal. There are limitations even when greatness is involved.
Jordan struggled without Pippen, Lebron without Wade and so forth.
Pauper is an outstanding format, it's a great entry way into competitive play, it's a great format for the budget minded, and it's capable of doing a lot of great things with neat cards! We do focus on Classic Pauper, for a few reasons. The first being Wizards of the Coast supports Classic pauper with events and queues. Because of this support the classic format has more players. Standard Pauper while neat, is a player run format, and it also has its fans.
Normally we run a Classic Pauper article, and a Standard pauper article, but our Standard pauper writer has taken a break while we all wait for Battle for Zendikar to come out, gwyned is a fantastic writer as well, and is super passionate about the format. However, writing quality pieces week after week is not only time consuming but something that runs the risk of burning writers out.
We do care about Standard pauper, Alex cares about Classic Pauper. It's important to note that they are two different formats with two different audiences and two different voices presenting them.
I'm not sure if you know this or not, but there is a filter on MTGO for Standard pauper games. Games from what I understand are abundant to find!
I think the issue with Cloud of Faeries is this has been a problem card for the past five years. No action has been taken against it, and while there are stats that back up the need for a ban, until it actually happens why talk about what would take its place? Movement on the ban list would produce the articles that you want, but stepping into hypothetical situations when the most powerful cards are still legal is a bit of a misuse of time.
It's really unfair to try to compare a rotating format with a nonrotating format. Classic Pauper gets cards from Vintage Masters. Standard Pauper goes as far back as Theros right now.
The formats are just too different.
Alex's voice does not speak for Standard pauper.
I think if you research some of Gwyneds articles about Standard pauper you would be rather pleased with his work.
Content creation for magic is going to be rife with the unintended ideas of others. I can recall a time where I wrote about a deck, and on the same day so did Gerry T and Frank Lepore. It happens. Gerry T has a top eight to his name, Frank has a grand prix top eight to his name, and I finished next to last a Pro Tour ten years ago. What we had were three unique voices offering three unique looks at a neat deck.
That's exactly what would happen if you wrote about something and if someone else wrote about something.
If you're passionate about Standard Pauper, write about it! Talk about it!
Alex was the voice of the voiceless for so long with Classic Pauper, and look at where that got him! The community cup, trust from the WOTC community, he put in the work and it let him get far!
I am truly sorry that you feel that way, I'll link the archieves of our standard pauper writer, and maybe the two of you can hook up on the client!
I do thank you for visiting the site and giving us a chance, and expressing your concerns!
All the best, and I really hope that you hang out!
The 'rotation' takes place 2-3 weeks after a regular set has been released. Then ALL card prices are checked again. Cards over or under the price cap, will rotate out or into the format, respectively. All cards stay legal or illegal until next rotation!
It serves a few different roles. It is a 0 cost spell that triggers prowess, fills the yard for delve, and draws you a card. With Gitaxian Probe and Bauble the deck can be a perfect information combo deck. Which is great for turns that you want to combo kill them.
Dear Alex, and the online community who’s following this thread:
Imagine we’re all watching a sport together. Pick the sport and the main player(s) in your own mind: basketball/Jordan, baseball/Jeter, football/Manning, etc. If the main star(s) does not slam dunk from the three point line, hit a homerun with his shoe, or pass for a thousand yards and a dozen TDs, we feel…emptier. We expect start-caliber plays from star-caliber players.
This helps explain my disappointment in your recent article. Yes, I know of your prolific writings, and many ARE slam dunks/homeruns/TDs. This most recent one got the job done with layups, bunts, and handing-off to the running game to secure the victory (read: online print).
As a newer player to MTGO, and having taken a real-life break from MtG for a few years, the pauper format appeals to me. As a hobby, not a professional card-playing job, I have limited resources to play. These resources include money for cards, as well as face-to-face opponents. When my local brick-and-mortar hobby shops don’t carry many cards older than two years, I immediately realize two things: 1) building a deck here should focus on the Standard format more than others, and 2) other players may be bound by this same restraint on their collections. However, since older cards aren’t recycled in an expensive card binder at the shop, I could predict that older cards are kept, not re-sold for to other patrons. Sure, I could buy cards online and have them shipped. Overall, though, I must realize the pool from which any future person-to-person matches may draw, and this includes Standard.
My experiences playing pauper (read: NOT Standard Pauper) in MTGO has been poor. A competitive Standard Pauper deck has very little chance against the main pauper architypes. Players willing to gamble on sitting across the virtual play mat remind me of this canyon between us, and often concede the match when I play a one-drop Standard card on the first play. My chats get filled with, “Hey, this is the pauper format.” I reply that my decks ARE all commons, just from the Standard pool. I am encouraged to net-deck one of the architypes, like Delver or MBC. While a one-time investment may be cheaper than a dozen Standard Pauper decks, what other options do I have? Sure, I can BUY – not build – Delver. I can be assured that with adequate experience, virtually no other deck can beat me. If it does, I can lick my wounds while slinging MBC, another deck I could buy. Or Affinity. Or Stompy. What happens when I cycle through a very, very familiar deck list again, and again, and again, and see the same decks tossed at my head? To me, this is boring. Pauper has nothing to offer new players beyond the net-deck lists.
Then, Alex steps into the game. Wow- maybe he read my comment about Cloud of Faeries! Maybe the site manager sees a newly-registered account that is active and reference the comment. Maybe we’ll see what happens to a sample deck IF Cloud of Faeries gets banned. Maybe we would see how the other architypes and metagame may change as a result. What card x4 gets the nod with Cloud of Faeries on the sidelines? I ask because I DON’T know.
I ask because I don’t know, and don’t feel encouraged to step into the wider pauper format because I don’t have an ammo belt filled with the current Top-Tier decks. Not even in the “Just for Fun” room do I actually have “fun” playing against the pauper architypes. In you, above many other writers, I hoped for some magical insights where you could break the format with a compelling argument. Not only would you have many fans backing you because…well, you’re YOU, you could light a path.
For me, the road into wide pauper is a dark one. It requires buying the top architypes or staying home (figuratively). It requires paying more money (vs. Standard Pauper decks costing less than a ticket) to play a boring pre-set of cards (vs. a constantly-evolving group of new cards with newer mechanics).
I hoped you could help change this mire, and invite the online community to be more welcoming of new pauper ideas.
I realize that many writers have deadlines, and must appeal to a certain demographic. I write, too. I write comic books, as my name and cartoon avatar suggest (which is much smaller than hoped, but works with the image size limitations for an avatar). I don’t like tradition for the sake of tradition alone. I enjoy watching an uneven playing field be leveled. I give kids a hero like themselves with the copyright on our world’s first featured comic hero with autism. Here’s a link to my interview with the NBC Nightly News: http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/making-a-difference/comic-book-stars-worl...
I would consider writing about MTGO, but since Pauper Standard doesn’t seem to have a wide fan base here, what’s the point? If I wrote about the new Standard un-named mechanic that applies “pre-combat” damage before the “assign blockers” stage, do I trust that it doesn’t become the subject of someone else’s new article, perhaps someone who is more established? Would people read it, or dismiss it because it wasn’t written by Alex and it doesn’t conform to the wider pool of pauper? Do people care about Thornbow Archer, some one-drop death-touchers, or Dashed creatures emitting a Foul-Tongue Shrek?
In conclusion, I don’t think this website is for me. It doesn’t have the attention to the Standard Pauper metagame for which I’m looking, despite tag lines about pauper. Thank you all, and I wish you luck with your net-decks architypes.
Could someone explain the Mishra's Bauble to me? It seems the mild increase in consistency isn't worth the tempo loss. I would rather just run another creature or burn spell. Am I wrong?
Really glad to have someone representing the format! I was wondering based on the last 2 tournaments, what your thoughts on a "metagame" deck would be?
Don't have a clear-cut answer for your first question, it could be a case of "this is how it's always been so don't mess with it" or something.
Your second question is awesome! I have a variation of Heirloom Goblins which uses a lot of the cards from the Pauper version - Foundry Street Denizen, Lightning Bolt, Goblin Bushwhacker, Goblin Cohort, Goblin Matron, Goblin Sledder, Mogg War-Marshal, Sparksmith. From there you can add everything from Goblin Chieftain to Goblin Grenade to Goblin Lackey, the list goes on...Mostly I use it as a gauntlet deck against our brews, but it seems to work quite well!
I know what you mean about the deck but I did not gut it and change it that drastically. I am pretty much playing the build that Ari Lax used. I just put in Kird Ape instead of Steppe Lynx. I should have posted his deck list but I myself do not have SCG Premium.
In the past I did do a lot more brews if you want to check them out you can. I really do appreciate your compliment. On MTGO I am still trying to find my groove as in what decks to play etc. In paper I have a bigger collection and have been playing the same Modern deck for awhile and the same with Legacy. I do primarily write about Standard now though. (Due to me not finding a Modern deck I am really into on here)
I am always looking to improve my writing, so I will take your critiques to heart and try to improve it. I am here to provide good content for you and other readers and I thank you for your time.
As stated, I have two things to say, and they're both a bit harsh. I do hope they are constructive, and I am not trying to troll. Your technical writing is better than many others on this and other sites, but the content could be better.
1) This deck.
There is a common mentality in Magic that finds a good, new deck and wants to change it. I understand the mentality, and there are a lot of potential forces behind it. Still, you admittedly got crushed by a pro using a deck, and your first instinct was to take it and gut it out for changes. The build presented here, the sideboard, and the sideboard plans show a lot of inexperience with the deck. This mindset is not good for quality content creation.
At heart, I am a fringe-deck player, whether it is my own brew or someone else's. This is why I bought johnnyhotsauce's Become Immense Zoo deck as soon as it 3-1'd a daily and _matsugan's deck when it 4-0'd. As soon as I did, though, I knew that I was playing a different sort of thing than I ever had before. I genuinely believe it is the best deck in Modern. I have nothing to gain from being a _matsugan-list proselyte, and I wish that I had a brew I could defend so adamantly as I do his list. So I sympathize with your goal here, but I also am disappointed with where you ended up.
The worst part about people taking his list and moving pieces around is that Death's Shadow, Become Immense, and Temur Battle Rage have such a powerful interaction that a brewer can experience a ton of success after changing other pieces. Still, it is not as good as the original.
2) Your articles.
Here is my perception of your article timeline.
A) "Here is a deck I am going to try."
B) [presents a mostly-preexisting deck]
-week later-
C) That deck didn't work out. Here is what I am trying now.
D) [deck tech of a deck that already exists]
repeat.
I am primarily a State of the Program puremtgo viewer. This perception may be wildly inaccurate. In fact I know at some point in there you dropped Modern altogether and changed formats, but essentially it was more experimentation with sub-tier 1 decks for very short periods of time.
I think you may experience some more success in your writing AND playing if you did one or both of two things:
1) Presented new decks to your and your readership that you created
2) Really focused on a deck for longer than a week
Every time I pick up a deck, I take it straight to 8-mans and Daily Events (ok, I did on modo, which I don't login to anymore). Forget practice and PREs. I limped through 3 straight 0-2s with _matsugan's Super Crazy Zoo. Eventually I got it up to a 40% win record. Before I sold out (Player Points), I had a 64% win rate with the deck. At one point I had a ~1750 constructed rating, before the Modern Festival and its rando-commandos hurt it with too many meta surprises. I can't advocate enough for sticking to a deck, and I hope that you do and that it helps your play and writing. All the best, keep it up.
Thanks for the interesting article. What's the reason for different cost restrictions at the different rarity levels? Why not have a set price for all cards? Would that imbalance the meta?
Any decks that you would recommend for someone trying this format coming from Pauper (for example, decks that a Pauper player might already have many of the cards for)?
I think it's quite amusing what ComixWriter wrote. It seems to me sometimes I can't avoid knowing what Alex is up to day by day in pauper; he writes so regularly for so many magic sites. And if there's a campaign to ban a pauper card then he always weighs in with a detailed analysis.
A major problem with pauper is the disintegration of what community existed, and like or loathe Alex's material he's a constant advocate for pauper (which deserves praise IMO).
I do think wotc have mismanaged pauper so far. They grabbed the format off the PRE community, but are not giving it the same attention they give modern for instance (note that fan outrage caused wotc to reverse the decision to reduce modern format on the pro tour). I lament the vanishment of casual pauper, PPS, 2HG et al.
I like Pure, and consider the idea of methodically purifying non-creature support cards to be your most ingenious idea (lots of your other ideas were great, too, but mostly needed hard work, not inspiration so much). When deckbuilding, I like not having to plan for things like Dark Depths or feeling foolish for not running it myself, had it been legal, if it were otherwise better than my current configuration.
I used Tree of Redemption as the lynchpin of a midrange synergistic plant deck which had the potential to accrue some ridiculous exponential card, creature size and life advantage, but I know full well, and often to my chagrin, the potential for the walldrazi/plantdrazi shell with just about any combo or big mana wincon. I'm not sure I see ToR's place in that shell, except as a delaying tactic of the like which the deck has several cheaper options. As a source of lifegain and high toughness, Wall of Reverence has the same CMC, thus seems a natural replacement in the other tribe assuming a straight adaptation from plant to wall.
We can also start with three lists, and then promote a tribe up if they get enough 1st places, and demote one down if they fail to attain some minimum required target, maybe checked twice per year.
This has always been my issue with it. Testing decks is difficult. Perhaps those interested in the format should maintain a regular chat presence on MTGO.
Nakedscmo - I will help you test! Accept no substitutes!
I'm really interested in any format that lets me play Cloudposts, but I am wondering where I can play this format? For Pauper I use the constructed open play tournament practice to play practice games. What is the equivalent or can I only play in tournaments?
What stood out to me the most from your comment was this:
"What happens when I cycle through a very, very familiar deck list again, and again, and again, and see the same decks tossed at my head? To me, this is boring."
Maybe at the root of everything is that you just don't like competitive Magic, pauper or otherwise? I feel the same way about it -- it's (for the most part) just a bunch of netdecking and grinding. Maybe you should do what I do and just play casually, ignoring all concerns about metagame and high-ticket cards?
Yes, there are some bullies who spoil the "just for fun" room by playing tournament-tier decks, but by and large you will run into like-minded folks with creative ideas. The diversity is quite great in non-pauper formats, not to mention, a casual legacy deck will cost significantly less than a tournament pauper deck, since most non-tournament rares are just 1 to 2 cents nowadays.
Give it a try! And uh, if you ever need dozens of ideas to get your creative juices flowing, I have a few articles on the subject :)
ML_Berlin - Glad you could clear that up! Great work hosting the events and keeping us informed.
magma728 - Thanks for you support! It's a bit early to tell, but I'm working on a piece that sort of addresses this. Sorry for being vague...
Personally my definition of a good word count is when I (finally) run out of things to talk about. (Typically that's well over 5k words.) But you should do whatever makes you happy. You will find that you will receive very little in the way of direction here. People may indeed give suggestions about what they like/don't like but deadlines are not a thing here as far as I can tell (6 years and counting of articles here and I've yet to have one to meet.)
The main thing is, write to please yourself first and then those you wish to reach. Well that's my humble $02.
http://pdcmagic.com/gatherling/eventreport.php?event=MPDC+30.05
I see that a longer comment let me get points across better. After re-reading my original post to Alex in this thread, I apologize, because I can see how it can seem attacking. This is not my intent. I do expect more from writers, but cannot accept the difficulties of writing as an excuse for any published content, using my own background and experience as an award-winning author myself.
To this end, I propose something. Yup, I know about SOME of the Standard Pauper metagame, but mostly through Gwyned, which is why I actually visit this site in the first place. For MTGO, I'm still VERY raw. If I were to propose an article about NEW players to Pauper, introducing new players to the easiest-to-get-into format- standard, would we have an audience? With the largest card pool set to rotate in a month, we could look at what cards poised for post-rotation play may work. For example, a white Warriors-based deck makes a lot of sense. Like this: http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/wwarriors-standard-pauper-post-rotation-f...
Additionally, I could write to attract help in making a definitive side board. This is my weakest strategy in the game, mostly because of how many cards rotate in and out as threats. I'd accept flares and jeers in the comments for my deck AND sideboard submissions.
Since this would be an appeal to newer players, we can discuss the strengths of certain colors, and how well this is reflected in the current standard card pull. As an added bonus for reading, I would suggest a "Dear Santa" wish list for new players needing competitive cards. My suggested cards to obtain (buy/trade/open) would at least make it through Christmas-time for rotation. For example, I think few people would balk at adding a playset of Pacifism in the current metagame featuring big beats and some unblockable critters.
I write from home (and thanks for the cool comments about the comic book!), so could even offer a mini-challenge each week. If someone thinks they can beat my suggested deck, or wants to try a counter-solution, we invite them to play me at HIGH NOON on, I dunno, a random day of the week not in direct competition with any other scheduled events. This allows me to gloat over victories, or eat humble pie in front of fans visiting the site. Either way, new players can learn from my mistakes as a self-proclaimed amateur trying to make an enjoyable and accessible format more fun.
A week of "White" introduces players to what the color is SUPPOSED to do, and how well that is reflected by card examples. Throughout the week, I'll build on the format and color possibilities, likely selecting one or more cards around which to build a deck. I'll make the deck list, and ask for suggestions. Then, I'll play the deck online and report the results. A quick write up of the matches played, with reflections, nets us a third article in a week: intro/design/playtest report. Word count could easily be something digestible as 400-600/500/200+ for these articles, or about 1,200 worth of writing words for a hobby per week. It may take me some time to ramp up to the speed, but how many words did I write in this post as I rambled?
Take a break for a week. Following decks would be each other week, using blue, black, green, red, and maybe even colorless (the new set already suggests how colorless may be an impact, but remains to be seen how much at the common-rarity level). If you see the tappedout.net link, you'll see that I'm already going to put my money where my mouth is, and host an open-challenge.
Now, is this something that would be welcomed as a contribution? Sound off in the comments section if you like the idea, how it can be improved, or where I went off the rails!
#lemonadefromlemons
This is quite the detailed comment, and your comic book accomplishment is pretty awesome! I'm going to pass by a few of your comments, because well, I grew up watching Jordan and he never dunked from the three point line, unless I was playing NBA Jam, and Barry Bonds never really hit a home run with his shoe (performance enhancing drugs not withstanding of course) and Manning never did that quarterbacking stuff.
The greats in sports, just like the greats in writing, or just about anything else are mortal. There are limitations even when greatness is involved.
Jordan struggled without Pippen, Lebron without Wade and so forth.
Pauper is an outstanding format, it's a great entry way into competitive play, it's a great format for the budget minded, and it's capable of doing a lot of great things with neat cards! We do focus on Classic Pauper, for a few reasons. The first being Wizards of the Coast supports Classic pauper with events and queues. Because of this support the classic format has more players. Standard Pauper while neat, is a player run format, and it also has its fans.
Normally we run a Classic Pauper article, and a Standard pauper article, but our Standard pauper writer has taken a break while we all wait for Battle for Zendikar to come out, gwyned is a fantastic writer as well, and is super passionate about the format. However, writing quality pieces week after week is not only time consuming but something that runs the risk of burning writers out.
We do care about Standard pauper, Alex cares about Classic Pauper. It's important to note that they are two different formats with two different audiences and two different voices presenting them.
I'm not sure if you know this or not, but there is a filter on MTGO for Standard pauper games. Games from what I understand are abundant to find!
I think the issue with Cloud of Faeries is this has been a problem card for the past five years. No action has been taken against it, and while there are stats that back up the need for a ban, until it actually happens why talk about what would take its place? Movement on the ban list would produce the articles that you want, but stepping into hypothetical situations when the most powerful cards are still legal is a bit of a misuse of time.
It's really unfair to try to compare a rotating format with a nonrotating format. Classic Pauper gets cards from Vintage Masters. Standard Pauper goes as far back as Theros right now.
The formats are just too different.
Alex's voice does not speak for Standard pauper.
I think if you research some of Gwyneds articles about Standard pauper you would be rather pleased with his work.
Content creation for magic is going to be rife with the unintended ideas of others. I can recall a time where I wrote about a deck, and on the same day so did Gerry T and Frank Lepore. It happens. Gerry T has a top eight to his name, Frank has a grand prix top eight to his name, and I finished next to last a Pro Tour ten years ago. What we had were three unique voices offering three unique looks at a neat deck.
That's exactly what would happen if you wrote about something and if someone else wrote about something.
If you're passionate about Standard Pauper, write about it! Talk about it!
Alex was the voice of the voiceless for so long with Classic Pauper, and look at where that got him! The community cup, trust from the WOTC community, he put in the work and it let him get far!
I am truly sorry that you feel that way, I'll link the archieves of our standard pauper writer, and maybe the two of you can hook up on the client!
I do thank you for visiting the site and giving us a chance, and expressing your concerns!
All the best, and I really hope that you hang out!
http://puremtgo.com/articles/recent?uid=gwyned&title=&field_summary_value=
The 'rotation' takes place 2-3 weeks after a regular set has been released. Then ALL card prices are checked again. Cards over or under the price cap, will rotate out or into the format, respectively. All cards stay legal or illegal until next rotation!
It serves a few different roles. It is a 0 cost spell that triggers prowess, fills the yard for delve, and draws you a card. With Gitaxian Probe and Bauble the deck can be a perfect information combo deck. Which is great for turns that you want to combo kill them.
Dear Alex, and the online community who’s following this thread:
Imagine we’re all watching a sport together. Pick the sport and the main player(s) in your own mind: basketball/Jordan, baseball/Jeter, football/Manning, etc. If the main star(s) does not slam dunk from the three point line, hit a homerun with his shoe, or pass for a thousand yards and a dozen TDs, we feel…emptier. We expect start-caliber plays from star-caliber players.
This helps explain my disappointment in your recent article. Yes, I know of your prolific writings, and many ARE slam dunks/homeruns/TDs. This most recent one got the job done with layups, bunts, and handing-off to the running game to secure the victory (read: online print).
As a newer player to MTGO, and having taken a real-life break from MtG for a few years, the pauper format appeals to me. As a hobby, not a professional card-playing job, I have limited resources to play. These resources include money for cards, as well as face-to-face opponents. When my local brick-and-mortar hobby shops don’t carry many cards older than two years, I immediately realize two things: 1) building a deck here should focus on the Standard format more than others, and 2) other players may be bound by this same restraint on their collections. However, since older cards aren’t recycled in an expensive card binder at the shop, I could predict that older cards are kept, not re-sold for to other patrons. Sure, I could buy cards online and have them shipped. Overall, though, I must realize the pool from which any future person-to-person matches may draw, and this includes Standard.
My experiences playing pauper (read: NOT Standard Pauper) in MTGO has been poor. A competitive Standard Pauper deck has very little chance against the main pauper architypes. Players willing to gamble on sitting across the virtual play mat remind me of this canyon between us, and often concede the match when I play a one-drop Standard card on the first play. My chats get filled with, “Hey, this is the pauper format.” I reply that my decks ARE all commons, just from the Standard pool. I am encouraged to net-deck one of the architypes, like Delver or MBC. While a one-time investment may be cheaper than a dozen Standard Pauper decks, what other options do I have? Sure, I can BUY – not build – Delver. I can be assured that with adequate experience, virtually no other deck can beat me. If it does, I can lick my wounds while slinging MBC, another deck I could buy. Or Affinity. Or Stompy. What happens when I cycle through a very, very familiar deck list again, and again, and again, and see the same decks tossed at my head? To me, this is boring. Pauper has nothing to offer new players beyond the net-deck lists.
Then, Alex steps into the game. Wow- maybe he read my comment about Cloud of Faeries! Maybe the site manager sees a newly-registered account that is active and reference the comment. Maybe we’ll see what happens to a sample deck IF Cloud of Faeries gets banned. Maybe we would see how the other architypes and metagame may change as a result. What card x4 gets the nod with Cloud of Faeries on the sidelines? I ask because I DON’T know.
I ask because I don’t know, and don’t feel encouraged to step into the wider pauper format because I don’t have an ammo belt filled with the current Top-Tier decks. Not even in the “Just for Fun” room do I actually have “fun” playing against the pauper architypes. In you, above many other writers, I hoped for some magical insights where you could break the format with a compelling argument. Not only would you have many fans backing you because…well, you’re YOU, you could light a path.
For me, the road into wide pauper is a dark one. It requires buying the top architypes or staying home (figuratively). It requires paying more money (vs. Standard Pauper decks costing less than a ticket) to play a boring pre-set of cards (vs. a constantly-evolving group of new cards with newer mechanics).
I hoped you could help change this mire, and invite the online community to be more welcoming of new pauper ideas.
I realize that many writers have deadlines, and must appeal to a certain demographic. I write, too. I write comic books, as my name and cartoon avatar suggest (which is much smaller than hoped, but works with the image size limitations for an avatar). I don’t like tradition for the sake of tradition alone. I enjoy watching an uneven playing field be leveled. I give kids a hero like themselves with the copyright on our world’s first featured comic hero with autism. Here’s a link to my interview with the NBC Nightly News: http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/making-a-difference/comic-book-stars-worl...
I would consider writing about MTGO, but since Pauper Standard doesn’t seem to have a wide fan base here, what’s the point? If I wrote about the new Standard un-named mechanic that applies “pre-combat” damage before the “assign blockers” stage, do I trust that it doesn’t become the subject of someone else’s new article, perhaps someone who is more established? Would people read it, or dismiss it because it wasn’t written by Alex and it doesn’t conform to the wider pool of pauper? Do people care about Thornbow Archer, some one-drop death-touchers, or Dashed creatures emitting a Foul-Tongue Shrek?
In conclusion, I don’t think this website is for me. It doesn’t have the attention to the Standard Pauper metagame for which I’m looking, despite tag lines about pauper. Thank you all, and I wish you luck with your net-decks architypes.
Could someone explain the Mishra's Bauble to me? It seems the mild increase in consistency isn't worth the tempo loss. I would rather just run another creature or burn spell. Am I wrong?
Really glad to have someone representing the format! I was wondering based on the last 2 tournaments, what your thoughts on a "metagame" deck would be?
mattingly23 - I appreciate the comment!
Don't have a clear-cut answer for your first question, it could be a case of "this is how it's always been so don't mess with it" or something.
Your second question is awesome! I have a variation of Heirloom Goblins which uses a lot of the cards from the Pauper version - Foundry Street Denizen, Lightning Bolt, Goblin Bushwhacker, Goblin Cohort, Goblin Matron, Goblin Sledder, Mogg War-Marshal, Sparksmith. From there you can add everything from Goblin Chieftain to Goblin Grenade to Goblin Lackey, the list goes on...Mostly I use it as a gauntlet deck against our brews, but it seems to work quite well!
I know what you mean about the deck but I did not gut it and change it that drastically. I am pretty much playing the build that Ari Lax used. I just put in Kird Ape instead of Steppe Lynx. I should have posted his deck list but I myself do not have SCG Premium.
In the past I did do a lot more brews if you want to check them out you can. I really do appreciate your compliment. On MTGO I am still trying to find my groove as in what decks to play etc. In paper I have a bigger collection and have been playing the same Modern deck for awhile and the same with Legacy. I do primarily write about Standard now though. (Due to me not finding a Modern deck I am really into on here)
I am always looking to improve my writing, so I will take your critiques to heart and try to improve it. I am here to provide good content for you and other readers and I thank you for your time.
As stated, I have two things to say, and they're both a bit harsh. I do hope they are constructive, and I am not trying to troll. Your technical writing is better than many others on this and other sites, but the content could be better.
1) This deck.
There is a common mentality in Magic that finds a good, new deck and wants to change it. I understand the mentality, and there are a lot of potential forces behind it. Still, you admittedly got crushed by a pro using a deck, and your first instinct was to take it and gut it out for changes. The build presented here, the sideboard, and the sideboard plans show a lot of inexperience with the deck. This mindset is not good for quality content creation.
At heart, I am a fringe-deck player, whether it is my own brew or someone else's. This is why I bought johnnyhotsauce's Become Immense Zoo deck as soon as it 3-1'd a daily and _matsugan's deck when it 4-0'd. As soon as I did, though, I knew that I was playing a different sort of thing than I ever had before. I genuinely believe it is the best deck in Modern. I have nothing to gain from being a _matsugan-list proselyte, and I wish that I had a brew I could defend so adamantly as I do his list. So I sympathize with your goal here, but I also am disappointed with where you ended up.
The worst part about people taking his list and moving pieces around is that Death's Shadow, Become Immense, and Temur Battle Rage have such a powerful interaction that a brewer can experience a ton of success after changing other pieces. Still, it is not as good as the original.
2) Your articles.
Here is my perception of your article timeline.
A) "Here is a deck I am going to try."
B) [presents a mostly-preexisting deck]
-week later-
C) That deck didn't work out. Here is what I am trying now.
D) [deck tech of a deck that already exists]
repeat.
I am primarily a State of the Program puremtgo viewer. This perception may be wildly inaccurate. In fact I know at some point in there you dropped Modern altogether and changed formats, but essentially it was more experimentation with sub-tier 1 decks for very short periods of time.
I think you may experience some more success in your writing AND playing if you did one or both of two things:
1) Presented new decks to your and your readership that you created
2) Really focused on a deck for longer than a week
Every time I pick up a deck, I take it straight to 8-mans and Daily Events (ok, I did on modo, which I don't login to anymore). Forget practice and PREs. I limped through 3 straight 0-2s with _matsugan's Super Crazy Zoo. Eventually I got it up to a 40% win record. Before I sold out (Player Points), I had a 64% win rate with the deck. At one point I had a ~1750 constructed rating, before the Modern Festival and its rando-commandos hurt it with too many meta surprises. I can't advocate enough for sticking to a deck, and I hope that you do and that it helps your play and writing. All the best, keep it up.
Classy! Really one of the best editor responses I've seen. Stand by your man, offer a new platform, and address the criticism.
Thanks for the interesting article. What's the reason for different cost restrictions at the different rarity levels? Why not have a set price for all cards? Would that imbalance the meta?
Any decks that you would recommend for someone trying this format coming from Pauper (for example, decks that a Pauper player might already have many of the cards for)?
I think it's quite amusing what ComixWriter wrote. It seems to me sometimes I can't avoid knowing what Alex is up to day by day in pauper; he writes so regularly for so many magic sites. And if there's a campaign to ban a pauper card then he always weighs in with a detailed analysis.
A major problem with pauper is the disintegration of what community existed, and like or loathe Alex's material he's a constant advocate for pauper (which deserves praise IMO).
I do think wotc have mismanaged pauper so far. They grabbed the format off the PRE community, but are not giving it the same attention they give modern for instance (note that fan outrage caused wotc to reverse the decision to reduce modern format on the pro tour). I lament the vanishment of casual pauper, PPS, 2HG et al.
Thanks Paul I'm having lots of fun at the moment on MTGO, the deck ideas are flowing well so more articles are on the horizon.
No problem AJ, it's always a pleasure playing you.
I like Pure, and consider the idea of methodically purifying non-creature support cards to be your most ingenious idea (lots of your other ideas were great, too, but mostly needed hard work, not inspiration so much). When deckbuilding, I like not having to plan for things like Dark Depths or feeling foolish for not running it myself, had it been legal, if it were otherwise better than my current configuration.
I used Tree of Redemption as the lynchpin of a midrange synergistic plant deck which had the potential to accrue some ridiculous exponential card, creature size and life advantage, but I know full well, and often to my chagrin, the potential for the walldrazi/plantdrazi shell with just about any combo or big mana wincon. I'm not sure I see ToR's place in that shell, except as a delaying tactic of the like which the deck has several cheaper options. As a source of lifegain and high toughness, Wall of Reverence has the same CMC, thus seems a natural replacement in the other tribe assuming a straight adaptation from plant to wall.
We can also start with three lists, and then promote a tribe up if they get enough 1st places, and demote one down if they fail to attain some minimum required target, maybe checked twice per year.