this thread is about the best deck in the format. my opinion is that post is the best deck in the format, not that it can't be beat in an individual match. best deck in the format means the deck over time that wins the most against a typical field.
if you come to the conclusion that that's any deck other than post right now, that's fine, but you're wrong.
There's a pretty big difference between calling Post the best deck and saying nothing else can compete with it.
There's a pretty big difference between calling Post the best deck and saying nothing else can compete with it.
That was poor wording on my part, I wanted to say that nothing can compete with it *as the best deck*. I mean that for the best deck category at the pauper awards, it's not close in my opinion. Post is the best deck right now, it's the deck to beat without question.
There are decks that can compete against post (actually are big favorites I think), notably mono-green post and dedicated mill decks, but they're usually pretty bad against the rest of the field
EDIT: Also it's hard to justify Post as the "best" deck without some objective data rather than an endless stream of histrionic badfeels.
VVVV
I suppose my data is subjective, based off a lot of playtime in the format.
I am a little butthurt, not because I always lose to post, but because my favorite format, that I thought was perfect the way it was, has seen its variance increase dramatically.
No, I don't have the time or desire to try to prove this beyond a doubt but it should be obvious to anyone who played a lot before the bans. The main problem is the post mirror match and how skill/luck plays into it.
I guess it probably comes down to what I value vs. what others value. Any format comes down to some mixture of luck and skill, which makes magic great. If I want to play a game with no luck involved I just play chess. That being said, I value a format where the skill/luck ratio is a little higher than where it is in pauper right now, even if that means there are non-interactive combo decks in the field. for example, the pauper format before the bans.
I suppose my data is subjective, based off a lot of playtime in the format.
I am a little butthurt, not because I always lose to post, but because my favorite format, that I thought was perfect the way it was, has seen its variance increase dramatically.
This is a good place to start; recognizing the existence of your own bias. I'm not totally sure what you mean by variance, or whether it's supposed to be good or bad.
No, I don't have the time or desire to try to prove this beyond a doubt but it should be obvious to anyone who played a lot before the bans. The main problem is the post mirror match and how skill/luck plays into it.
They aggregate the 3-1 and 4-0 decks and keep a running average of the last N events. These are the decks that are winning. Post is a large chunk, but it's a smaller chunk than either of Delver or Affinity at the moment.
Thus, saying it "should be obvious" is kind of silly.
I guess it probably comes down to what I value vs. what others value. Any format comes down to some mixture of luck and skill, which makes magic great. If I want to play a game with no luck involved I just play chess. That being said, I value a format where the skill/luck ratio is a little higher than where it is in pauper right now, even if that means there are non-interactive combo decks in the field. for example, the pauper format before the bans.
Emphasis yours. I don't get how a format where the Tier 1 Turn 3 Slot Machine has been removed is more luck-intensive. That just literally makes no sense to me, at all. You want more skill and less luck, but you want the non-interactive he-has-it-or-he-doesn't deck to be legal? Seriously, what?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
Playing in the tourny practice/dailies, I seem to play:
25%post
25%MGA
20%MUA
15%affinity
10% MRA
5%other
Is there anything that has a strong game against those top 2? I would think heavy removal MBC (to beat MGA, affinity and MRA) with a heavy LD/hand disruption SB could do it, but I'm stumped these days.
I think the problem that I personally have with cloudpost is that it feels very demoralizing with how resilient it is and yet takes so long to play out like a long, boring, combo-deck turn, stretched out over an entire match. I've tried going heavy discard in mbc, along with running the full 12 LD spells in the side, and I've tried burn. Several other decks that I have simply tried but not specifically for cloudpost have obviously failed there as well. I can't consistently stop cloudpost without just playing stompy, affinity, or mua. That is entirely my decision (shortcoming?) and not a problem with the format. If I just wanted to play for value I wouldn't play whatever crap popped into my head.
I think the best pauper deck objectively is affinity. It can pack itself full of free spells that can't all be countered so mono blue has to be faster and can't ride its tempo game to victory, it can combo out with fling against heavy attrition decks like cloudpost/mbc, and its main deck dudes are bigger than the fast aggro in the format. There is a lot of hate in the meta to fight it but there aren't any other relevant decks running artifacts worth siding in answers to. I'm probably wrong about the color of the sky too, so don't get overly excited to tell me about it.
I think the best pauper deck subjectively is burn because fire mother ****er.
There different versions of post, so I suppose none can be the single best deck, but Cloudpost is probably the most broken card currently in pauper. Affinity is good, but effective hate exists and it can be outraced. Post is just the most powerful thing you can do I think, and probably worth a ban.
Without retreading my ten-dozen arguments about why Cloudpost isn't a problem, I just want to point out that Fissure Post has risen to the point of pulling equal share with :symur:Post, and I hope it takes over the format so we can finally ban Temporal Fissure and be done with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
Cloudpost itself isn't broken IMO, it's the interactions it can produce that are truly frustrating. Fissure lock for example, is hugely infuriating. Familiar Storm does the same thing as Simic Post and doesn't need the Cloudposts to do it. You haven't lived until an opponent has evoke/Snapped a Mulldrifter twice, then hard casts it on turn 3. Then he Fissure locks you with Mnemonic Wall on turn 4.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Occasionally streaming Pauper. Stop by Here for chatting and viewing pleasure!
Without retreading my ten-dozen arguments about why Cloudpost isn't a problem, I just want to point out that Fissure Post has risen to the point of pulling equal share with :symur:Post, and I hope it takes over the format so we can finally ban Temporal Fissure and be done with it.
While all your arguments point to Cloudpost not being overly abusive you still have to compare it to other banned cards. Was Empty the Warrens a better card than Cloudpost? Was it truly a bigger problem than Cloudpost is now.
I mean Grixis storm didn't really have too much a leg up on any other deck and didnt drag the game if it lost whereas both Cloudpost and Faeries are miserable decks to play against.
Spent the last week on MTGO A)building a deck and B) chilling in the tournament practice rooms...and gotta say the field there seems wide open. Ive been playing u/g post/tron (not sure which lands work better) and it's been a blast! Affinity, Goblins, and U/R post are good at what they do and consistent....u/b control has felt unwinnable sometimes (they eat my whole hand, and recur Mulldrifter with Undying Evil with trigger on stack!) I like main deck lifegain (ramp into Fangren maradervs Atog affinity!) vs aggro and Ulamog's crusher on turn 3 can do work vs format still. BEST Pauper deck...depends on meta! http://www.mtgo-stats.com/stats/Pauper
good stuff!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Turn 3 Karn Liberated...why yes, that seems fair....modern....good stuff....:D
There's a pretty big gap between the practice room and the actual tournaments; Delver is creeping up on twenty percent of the tournament meta, lately.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
Yeah, you'll see far more rogue decks in the tournament practice room - they are trying to see how their deck holds up vs. the meta. But come tournament time, they'll swap out their weird brew for something reliable. And by reliable, I mean Affinity / Delver / Stompy. Your deck has to be able to do decent against Faeries and Affinity, or don't bother signing up for a tournament.
Don't want to start a new thread for this, but out of some of the more competitive decks in Pauper, which would you guys recommend for someone who is new to pauper and constructed in general?
Practice makes perfect, naturally. If there was a tier 1 deck that didn't have ample room for you to screw up and throw games away, everyone would just play that. I can't count the times I've ripped off a Delver player who just had no clue how to stop me even on games 2 or 3. Even burn, perhaps especially burn, is subject to mismanaging resources and misaccounting for the opponent's capabilities.
Delver is money-expensive, and has a huge learning curve as far as what to mull and how to play around different tactics; Affinity and Stompy are much more about having the right mix of mana and spells, and knowing how to mitigate sideboard hate. Everyone should learn on fast linear decks, and graduate to slower, quirkier ones; it's a matter of having fewer meaningful decisions per game while you're trying to learn what works and doesn't work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
EDIT: Do you even know much about Pauper if you think the decks can even get up to 100tix in price?
Actually you're completely wrong about this. The monoblue faeries deck that I have played to multiple 4-0 and 3-1 finishes costs between 80-90 tickets. Some of the cloudpost variants can go in excess of 90 tickets.
This is mostly due to cloud of faeries being a seven ticket card and serrated arrows which ranges around 8-10 tickets.
Actually you're completely wrong about this. The monoblue faeries deck that I have played to multiple 4-0 and 3-1 finishes costs between 80-90 tickets. Some of the cloudpost variants can go in excess of 90 tickets.
This is mostly due to cloud of faeries being a seven ticket card and serrated arrows which ranges around 8-10 tickets.
Note the date of Frox's post, I think it's fairly safe to say the cards were a bit cheaper at the time.
In fact I think even just a couple months ago the deck was only about $70-80 on average but it's seen a bit of an upswing in popularity of late and since a lot of the cards had fairly limited online print runs (Cloud of Faeries, Snap, Daze, Serrated Arrows) the increased demand has drove a lot of them up in price.
Note the date of Frox's post, I think it's fairly safe to say the cards were a bit cheaper at the time.
In fact I think even just a couple months ago the deck was only about $70-80 on average but it's seen a bit of an upswing in popularity of late and since a lot of the cards had fairly limited online print runs (Cloud of Faeries, Snap, Daze, Serrated Arrows) the increased demand has drove a lot of them up in price.
Nah, daze has pretty much always been a ten ticket card due to legacy play. I'm pretty sure I paid 10 tix for my dazes about five years ago. Cloud has typically also been a bit expensive. The only real change I've seen is that arrows has roughly doubled in price over the last few years - although it's still sacrilege to use the bad art/wrong "frame" on any of these cards, even if it saves you a ticket or two. Playing ugly serrated arrows is almost like mismatched lands. Fashion faux pas.
There's a pretty big difference between calling Post the best deck and saying nothing else can compete with it.
That was poor wording on my part, I wanted to say that nothing can compete with it *as the best deck*. I mean that for the best deck category at the pauper awards, it's not close in my opinion. Post is the best deck right now, it's the deck to beat without question.
There are decks that can compete against post (actually are big favorites I think), notably mono-green post and dedicated mill decks, but they're usually pretty bad against the rest of the field
I suppose my data is subjective, based off a lot of playtime in the format.
I am a little butthurt, not because I always lose to post, but because my favorite format, that I thought was perfect the way it was, has seen its variance increase dramatically.
No, I don't have the time or desire to try to prove this beyond a doubt but it should be obvious to anyone who played a lot before the bans. The main problem is the post mirror match and how skill/luck plays into it.
I guess it probably comes down to what I value vs. what others value. Any format comes down to some mixture of luck and skill, which makes magic great. If I want to play a game with no luck involved I just play chess. That being said, I value a format where the skill/luck ratio is a little higher than where it is in pauper right now, even if that means there are non-interactive combo decks in the field. for example, the pauper format before the bans.
This is a good place to start; recognizing the existence of your own bias. I'm not totally sure what you mean by variance, or whether it's supposed to be good or bad.
That's the best part, you don't have to gather your own data. I've posted it a dozen times, here it is again: http://www.mtgo-stats.com/stats/Pauper
They aggregate the 3-1 and 4-0 decks and keep a running average of the last N events. These are the decks that are winning. Post is a large chunk, but it's a smaller chunk than either of Delver or Affinity at the moment.
Thus, saying it "should be obvious" is kind of silly.
Emphasis yours. I don't get how a format where the Tier 1 Turn 3 Slot Machine has been removed is more luck-intensive. That just literally makes no sense to me, at all. You want more skill and less luck, but you want the non-interactive he-has-it-or-he-doesn't deck to be legal? Seriously, what?
25%post
25%MGA
20%MUA
15%affinity
10% MRA
5%other
Is there anything that has a strong game against those top 2? I would think heavy removal MBC (to beat MGA, affinity and MRA) with a heavy LD/hand disruption SB could do it, but I'm stumped these days.
I think the best pauper deck objectively is affinity. It can pack itself full of free spells that can't all be countered so mono blue has to be faster and can't ride its tempo game to victory, it can combo out with fling against heavy attrition decks like cloudpost/mbc, and its main deck dudes are bigger than the fast aggro in the format. There is a lot of hate in the meta to fight it but there aren't any other relevant decks running artifacts worth siding in answers to. I'm probably wrong about the color of the sky too, so don't get overly excited to tell me about it.
I think the best pauper deck subjectively is burn because fire mother ****er.
Fires :symr:f Salvation
While all your arguments point to Cloudpost not being overly abusive you still have to compare it to other banned cards. Was Empty the Warrens a better card than Cloudpost? Was it truly a bigger problem than Cloudpost is now.
I mean Grixis storm didn't really have too much a leg up on any other deck and didnt drag the game if it lost whereas both Cloudpost and Faeries are miserable decks to play against.
good stuff!
Check out my MTG video drafts and draftcaps!
Fires :symr:f Salvation
Delver is money-expensive, and has a huge learning curve as far as what to mull and how to play around different tactics; Affinity and Stompy are much more about having the right mix of mana and spells, and knowing how to mitigate sideboard hate. Everyone should learn on fast linear decks, and graduate to slower, quirkier ones; it's a matter of having fewer meaningful decisions per game while you're trying to learn what works and doesn't work.
Check out my MTG video drafts and draftcaps!
Actually you're completely wrong about this. The monoblue faeries deck that I have played to multiple 4-0 and 3-1 finishes costs between 80-90 tickets. Some of the cloudpost variants can go in excess of 90 tickets.
This is mostly due to cloud of faeries being a seven ticket card and serrated arrows which ranges around 8-10 tickets.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
Fires :symr:f Salvation
Note the date of Frox's post, I think it's fairly safe to say the cards were a bit cheaper at the time.
In fact I think even just a couple months ago the deck was only about $70-80 on average but it's seen a bit of an upswing in popularity of late and since a lot of the cards had fairly limited online print runs (Cloud of Faeries, Snap, Daze, Serrated Arrows) the increased demand has drove a lot of them up in price.
Nah, daze has pretty much always been a ten ticket card due to legacy play. I'm pretty sure I paid 10 tix for my dazes about five years ago. Cloud has typically also been a bit expensive. The only real change I've seen is that arrows has roughly doubled in price over the last few years - although it's still sacrilege to use the bad art/wrong "frame" on any of these cards, even if it saves you a ticket or two. Playing ugly serrated arrows is almost like mismatched lands. Fashion faux pas.
*DCI Rules Advisor*