I like the three tiers idea. Maybe Pure is beginning to overstay its welcome, we can start next year replacing it by creating three monthly subformats based on inclusion. Week 1: up to the Major League (which could be the new name for Regular), week 2: middle group (name TBD), week 3: Underdog. With the 4th week free to repeat Major or do specialty formats.
We have some time to refine lists and system.
Can be? Yes, those are somewhat expensive two-card combos which don't do that much even when assembled, which also either forces you to go into 24 walls (probably not ideal) or give up one of Roots, Battlement, the 8 draw-a-card walls, a 1-2 copy of Wall of Mulch, and/or possibly Vine Trellis or Tinder Wall (mana is amazing). Those cards do nothing to stop combo and not much for the durdling midrange decks with plenty of removal or an over-the-top win con. More power to you if you think you can get it to consistently win, but I prefer cards that are justifiable alone or have stronger combo potency.
Hi ComixWriter - thanks for taking the time to leave feedback. I'll keep in mind providing more of my own personal commentary and as well as my impetus for collecting the statistics for next time. Even so, I hope others find value reviewing the statistics for themselves, whether out of pure curiosity or so that they might gain some insights of their own (that hopefully they share with the rest of us). If you have any recommended resources I might find useful in the area of Magic statistical analysis, please share!
Hi Comix, and thank you for commenting on the past few articles by Alex.
I'm always open to listen to any criticism of how I do things, and while I think I have a pretty strong read on the audience of the site, I am always willing to have another view presented.
Alex is one of the sites most respected writers and he has been plugging away at this for about as long as I have been here! In fact when I started up I wanted to cut pauper coverage, because I wanted the site to grow in a different direction, and soon realized that I did not have the audiences attention. Alex has been a voice for Pauper for many years, and that has led to him writing for Starcitygames and Gatheringmagic as well.
He's someone that I am honored to call a friend, and someone that I have had the pleasure to watch grow into a very fine writer and even better person.
Caliban is also a fantastic writer and I would very much love for them to start writing again, and I believe that some of our audience would also like that.
I implore you to keep asking questions. The cloud of faeries article that Alex wrote (while it is a topic he has spent a lot of time on in the past.) was outstanding, if you asking questions leads to that kind of writing everyone is better off right?
I don't believe that I failed with this article, and I do not believe that Alex failed with it. Please if you would like to discuss this further, feel free to email me at puremtgoeditor@gmail.com or contact me on Facebook at Joshua Claytor. I'm always available to listen, and hopefully grow as a content manager.
I think Plant is better for kill spells in the 4-7 range in different colors as you get Sylvan Caryatid (and maybe Utopia Tree) and the Tree of Redemption. Walls do better for purely green/colorless kill spells with 8+cc as there is no plant replacement for Overgrown Battlement, though Plants can let the Battlement tag along as even more mana. With Walls, you more or less have to have a separate non-Wall lifegain analogue (no Tree), so your spell selection is a bit diluted.
Wall and then Plant. The major league status was more about preventing Emrakul from being King of the Tournament than anything else. Even running pure Eldrazi it is possible to build game breaking decks featuring Emrakul.
Comix
This is an open article site. Anyone can post an article and have it published if it is reasonably self-edited. Joshua Claytor, THE content manager does try and look out for typos and bad grammar but to edit each article as if he were a book editor would be an endless and thankless job.
Alex is a fairly well known pauper entity. I won't say "celebrity" because I think Alex does not see himself that way but he is highly respected in the community and many of his articles are highly regarded as seminal. I recommend the archive on this very site under the heading "Article Library" if you grow curious to read more.
You are of course welcome to your opinion regarding the content of this article but you may find people responding angrily to such criticism that you post if you phrase it is an attack on Alex.
It may be that Alex might have put more into this article than he did but imho it is fine for what it is.
The fact that he took our discussion about Cloud of Faeries and chose to wade into it in article form does not indicate any disrespect to you or me (we were the main people discussing it as I recall). Imho he said what he had to say on the subject and you should address it as if it were a reply our comments in his last article. That's how I see it anyway.
The first player of the year of the Blippian Era was NemesisParadigm, and he was infamous for that deck. He could make those Eldrazi sing. (Singing Eldrazi are a terrible, terrible thing, which redefines the word 'earworm').
There are open submissions here, so by all means, write something better. That's the best way to prove the point you're hinting at. I wish you the best of luck.
I can assure you that cranking out content week after week is harder than it seems from the outside.
Well, I'm going to be premiering a Snake deck in the next couple of weeks and I feel confident that I can demonstrate that they are not Major League material. Not when I'm the one piloting them!
@ComixWriter: I play Pauper exclusively on Magic Online and am participating in the two-person queues currently. My schedule doesn't really allow me time to play in the scheduled events.
As for Standard Pauper: No - the format bores me.
As far as the Cloud of Faeries issue, I've actually been talking about it at length for some time (you can ask any of my critics - they're tired of hearing about it). I do want to thank you for bringing it up as it gave me a chance to see other people discuss it, outside my normal chat group.
You should just be happy that anybody took your CoF rant seriously. The arguments presented in last weeks article were far better than "I cannot find the card in my local area and it is an old card so let us ban it".
A hallmark of academic research is to find a solution to a posed problem. Data analysis is a key element in this strategy. You've shown us data, but failed to even risk a possible conclusion. You delved (pun intended) into the research for a reason, at least in your mind, but what does the data suggest to you about your initial hypothesis? I applaud your data collection and pretty presentation, but am annoyed that you stopped at the finish line to look around and smell flowers.
Based on your own data collection and analysis, what does your gut - if not mind - tell you about the cards used in the format? We currently fight Delver and MBC in pauper - will that metagame change or needs be changed? How, if so, and with what new conditions may you suggest?
...or are you sticking to a journalist mindset- just report facts without bias? If the latter, I've no reason to read anything further that you write.
A primer about common-rarity as it pertains to Pauper is fine.
...and reprinted elsewhere, with more details like statistical pricings and metagame cards, all over the internet.
What are you trying to do with this article, really? Do you actively play Pauper in any recent tournaments? How's that going, if you do? Any STANDARD Pauper decks you'd like to try?
I'd ask a lot more questions, but possibly you'll yank my questions as the topic of your newest article, like you did with Cloud of tiny sprite people. "LIGHTNING BOLT" did more burn to me than anything you'd play against me.
Fans come here for a reason. Looking at comments left ahead of me, I think you and your editors are slipping, grasping for a way to connect with your readership...
Under a proposed three-tier system, we would have the following.
Major League: (13) Human, Elf, Goblin, Construct, Druid, Faerie, Knight, Merfolk, Shaman, Soldier, Spirit, Wizard, Zombie
I'm unsure about Zombie as it has a very hard time against Elf and Goblin for starters.
The Mid-Majors look like a fantastic sweet spot of power and creativity, with the Regular ban list as default. It is composed of tribes moving down from the Major Leagues that can't hang with Humans, Elves, Goblins and tribes that are probably over-the-curve for Underdog, and regardless within comparable levels of the descending tribes.
(35)
(moved down from Major League) Ally, Angel, Assassin, Beast, Bird, Cat, Cleric, Demon, Dragon, Eldrazi, Elemental, Golem, Illusion, Imp, Kithkin, Monk, Rogue, Sliver, Treefolk, Vampire, Wall, Warrior, Werewolf
(moved up from Underdog)
Berserker, Centaur, Horror, Insect, Kavu, Kor, Myr, Plant, Rebel, Scarecrow, Scout, Soltari, Vedalken
I'm unsure about possibly underestimating the power level of the following tribes, as I don't think they can match up well with my proposed ex-Major League tribes, so I would let them stay in Underdog for now where they will likely become among the most played: Artificer (46), Avatar (58), Drake (70), Gargoyle (22), Hound (60), Hydra (30), Nomad (26), Ogre (71), Rat (41), Shapeshifter (70), Sphinx (33), Wurm (72).
1 week of each of these tiers (Major League, Mid-Major, Underdog) plus Regular-Jr., aka - Pure - would be fun for me. Or keep 2 regular events and rotate between Underdog and Mid-major. In any event, tribes can always "play up" into a higher bracket if they want to.
I like the three tiers idea. Maybe Pure is beginning to overstay its welcome, we can start next year replacing it by creating three monthly subformats based on inclusion. Week 1: up to the Major League (which could be the new name for Regular), week 2: middle group (name TBD), week 3: Underdog. With the 4th week free to repeat Major or do specialty formats.
We have some time to refine lists and system.
Can be? Yes, those are somewhat expensive two-card combos which don't do that much even when assembled, which also either forces you to go into 24 walls (probably not ideal) or give up one of Roots, Battlement, the 8 draw-a-card walls, a 1-2 copy of Wall of Mulch, and/or possibly Vine Trellis or Tinder Wall (mana is amazing). Those cards do nothing to stop combo and not much for the durdling midrange decks with plenty of removal or an over-the-top win con. More power to you if you think you can get it to consistently win, but I prefer cards that are justifiable alone or have stronger combo potency.
Not so: Wall of Reverence can be a very effective lifegain effect for walls, especially alongside things like Vent Sentinels or Wall of Limbs.
Drat it, now I want to build that deck.
Good call! But will the future refuse to change here? ;)
Another fine casual piece. I am so glad you've come back and are providing content for the fun lovers among us. :D Lure me in is particularly funny.
Ah yes, I remember that game. I was experimenting with quite a few enchantment-heavy builds at the time, mostly for Tribal. Thanks for the mention. :)
Hi ComixWriter - thanks for taking the time to leave feedback. I'll keep in mind providing more of my own personal commentary and as well as my impetus for collecting the statistics for next time. Even so, I hope others find value reviewing the statistics for themselves, whether out of pure curiosity or so that they might gain some insights of their own (that hopefully they share with the rest of us). If you have any recommended resources I might find useful in the area of Magic statistical analysis, please share!
Hi Comix, and thank you for commenting on the past few articles by Alex.
I'm always open to listen to any criticism of how I do things, and while I think I have a pretty strong read on the audience of the site, I am always willing to have another view presented.
Alex is one of the sites most respected writers and he has been plugging away at this for about as long as I have been here! In fact when I started up I wanted to cut pauper coverage, because I wanted the site to grow in a different direction, and soon realized that I did not have the audiences attention. Alex has been a voice for Pauper for many years, and that has led to him writing for Starcitygames and Gatheringmagic as well.
He's someone that I am honored to call a friend, and someone that I have had the pleasure to watch grow into a very fine writer and even better person.
Caliban is also a fantastic writer and I would very much love for them to start writing again, and I believe that some of our audience would also like that.
I implore you to keep asking questions. The cloud of faeries article that Alex wrote (while it is a topic he has spent a lot of time on in the past.) was outstanding, if you asking questions leads to that kind of writing everyone is better off right?
I don't believe that I failed with this article, and I do not believe that Alex failed with it. Please if you would like to discuss this further, feel free to email me at puremtgoeditor@gmail.com or contact me on Facebook at Joshua Claytor. I'm always available to listen, and hopefully grow as a content manager.
Thank you very much!
I think Plant is better for kill spells in the 4-7 range in different colors as you get Sylvan Caryatid (and maybe Utopia Tree) and the Tree of Redemption. Walls do better for purely green/colorless kill spells with 8+cc as there is no plant replacement for Overgrown Battlement, though Plants can let the Battlement tag along as even more mana. With Walls, you more or less have to have a separate non-Wall lifegain analogue (no Tree), so your spell selection is a bit diluted.
Wall and then Plant. The major league status was more about preventing Emrakul from being King of the Tournament than anything else. Even running pure Eldrazi it is possible to build game breaking decks featuring Emrakul.
Was the tribe Eldrazi or Wall though?
Comix
This is an open article site. Anyone can post an article and have it published if it is reasonably self-edited. Joshua Claytor, THE content manager does try and look out for typos and bad grammar but to edit each article as if he were a book editor would be an endless and thankless job.
Alex is a fairly well known pauper entity. I won't say "celebrity" because I think Alex does not see himself that way but he is highly respected in the community and many of his articles are highly regarded as seminal. I recommend the archive on this very site under the heading "Article Library" if you grow curious to read more.
You are of course welcome to your opinion regarding the content of this article but you may find people responding angrily to such criticism that you post if you phrase it is an attack on Alex.
It may be that Alex might have put more into this article than he did but imho it is fine for what it is.
The fact that he took our discussion about Cloud of Faeries and chose to wade into it in article form does not indicate any disrespect to you or me (we were the main people discussing it as I recall). Imho he said what he had to say on the subject and you should address it as if it were a reply our comments in his last article. That's how I see it anyway.
=edit= Also interesting avatar there.
That makes me think of the sound Lavos makes in Chronotrigger! Is that just me? : )
The first player of the year of the Blippian Era was NemesisParadigm, and he was infamous for that deck. He could make those Eldrazi sing. (Singing Eldrazi are a terrible, terrible thing, which redefines the word 'earworm').
Walldrazi was once a thing.
There are open submissions here, so by all means, write something better. That's the best way to prove the point you're hinting at. I wish you the best of luck.
I can assure you that cranking out content week after week is harder than it seems from the outside.
It always struck me as odd that Eldrazi are considered Major League when they've apparently never won a single event.
Well, I'm going to be premiering a Snake deck in the next couple of weeks and I feel confident that I can demonstrate that they are not Major League material. Not when I'm the one piloting them!
@ComixWriter: I play Pauper exclusively on Magic Online and am participating in the two-person queues currently. My schedule doesn't really allow me time to play in the scheduled events.
As for Standard Pauper: No - the format bores me.
As far as the Cloud of Faeries issue, I've actually been talking about it at length for some time (you can ask any of my critics - they're tired of hearing about it). I do want to thank you for bringing it up as it gave me a chance to see other people discuss it, outside my normal chat group.
You should just be happy that anybody took your CoF rant seriously. The arguments presented in last weeks article were far better than "I cannot find the card in my local area and it is an old card so let us ban it".
A hallmark of academic research is to find a solution to a posed problem. Data analysis is a key element in this strategy. You've shown us data, but failed to even risk a possible conclusion. You delved (pun intended) into the research for a reason, at least in your mind, but what does the data suggest to you about your initial hypothesis? I applaud your data collection and pretty presentation, but am annoyed that you stopped at the finish line to look around and smell flowers.
Based on your own data collection and analysis, what does your gut - if not mind - tell you about the cards used in the format? We currently fight Delver and MBC in pauper - will that metagame change or needs be changed? How, if so, and with what new conditions may you suggest?
...or are you sticking to a journalist mindset- just report facts without bias? If the latter, I've no reason to read anything further that you write.
A primer about common-rarity as it pertains to Pauper is fine.
...and reprinted elsewhere, with more details like statistical pricings and metagame cards, all over the internet.
What are you trying to do with this article, really? Do you actively play Pauper in any recent tournaments? How's that going, if you do? Any STANDARD Pauper decks you'd like to try?
I'd ask a lot more questions, but possibly you'll yank my questions as the topic of your newest article, like you did with Cloud of tiny sprite people. "LIGHTNING BOLT" did more burn to me than anything you'd play against me.
Fans come here for a reason. Looking at comments left ahead of me, I think you and your editors are slipping, grasping for a way to connect with your readership...
...and failing, today, at least.
We need more articles.
Write one for me pretty please caliban17?
- canible17 ;)
Hey when are you going to write more articles!
Under a proposed three-tier system, we would have the following.
Major League: (13) Human, Elf, Goblin, Construct, Druid, Faerie, Knight, Merfolk, Shaman, Soldier, Spirit, Wizard, Zombie
I'm unsure about Zombie as it has a very hard time against Elf and Goblin for starters.
The Mid-Majors look like a fantastic sweet spot of power and creativity, with the Regular ban list as default. It is composed of tribes moving down from the Major Leagues that can't hang with Humans, Elves, Goblins and tribes that are probably over-the-curve for Underdog, and regardless within comparable levels of the descending tribes.
(35)
(moved down from Major League) Ally, Angel, Assassin, Beast, Bird, Cat, Cleric, Demon, Dragon, Eldrazi, Elemental, Golem, Illusion, Imp, Kithkin, Monk, Rogue, Sliver, Treefolk, Vampire, Wall, Warrior, Werewolf
(moved up from Underdog)
Berserker, Centaur, Horror, Insect, Kavu, Kor, Myr, Plant, Rebel, Scarecrow, Scout, Soltari, Vedalken
I'm unsure about possibly underestimating the power level of the following tribes, as I don't think they can match up well with my proposed ex-Major League tribes, so I would let them stay in Underdog for now where they will likely become among the most played: Artificer (46), Avatar (58), Drake (70), Gargoyle (22), Hound (60), Hydra (30), Nomad (26), Ogre (71), Rat (41), Shapeshifter (70), Sphinx (33), Wurm (72).
For the other Underdog tribes, see Kuma's excellent list (minus the ones I've proposed moving up): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gFKhJtWCl6Yo82Ez0d_N4Iq58ruqfQWY....
1 week of each of these tiers (Major League, Mid-Major, Underdog) plus Regular-Jr., aka - Pure - would be fun for me. Or keep 2 regular events and rotate between Underdog and Mid-major. In any event, tribes can always "play up" into a higher bracket if they want to.
Thoughts?