But this forum is for Sanctionated Online Formats... Even Paper Pauper is diferent of this. Maybe if the admins are keen on it, making a pauper section on sanctionate play, but not the online one, should be more correct...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
Magic Intelligence - Now in the last stage of beta. With archetyps and pretty more data! A strong source for facts.. or as you can say statistics and decklists of MtG!
I suggest just one subform for "Paper Pauper" formats and threads can be created as needed. I don't believe things such as 'standard pauper' or 'modern pauper' could have enough activity to warrant their own discussion board, however it certainly would be a good place for individual threads to go into.
I'm not sure who to ask permission to, but I'm planning on writing a primer for green stompy in the usual format. My outline is here.
That's a start, but it's not too deep. Most of the Primers, as you can see, are well-elaborated. This just states ideal card choices and decklists without any reasoning to follow. There's work to be done before I'd green-light it.
I suggest that if you want to make a test primer, you can use Testing Grounds for that purpose and contact me once you think it's ready for review.
That's a start, but it's not too deep. Most of the Primers, as you can see, are well-elaborated. This just states ideal card choices and decklists without any reasoning to follow. There's work to be done before I'd green-light it.
I suggest that if you want to make a test primer, you can use Testing Grounds for that purpose and contact me once you think it's ready for review.
Well, I was going off the format of the existing primers. At 3000 words, it's already more than 2-3x the word count of most of the established primers, and most of those only discuss card choices:
MUC - 800
storm - 1000
WW - 1100
MBC - 1500
Boros - 3800
UR Post - 3900
As you'll have seen from reading through, I'm not just listing cards, I do discuss strategy where there are strategic decisions about particular cards; in general though, it's cast creatures and turn them sideways - I'm not sure how much more I can say :).
If anyone has suggestions then feel free to say so but I haven't got much more to say beyond what's there. I was considering a "standard play" type writeup, but it's so dependent on your hand and what removal or blockers you come up agains that it's not really worthwhile.
Well, I was going off the format of the existing primers. At 3000 words, it's already more than 2-3x the word count of most of the established primers, and most of those only discuss card choices:
MUC - 800
storm - 1000
WW - 1100
MBC - 1500
Boros - 3800
UR Post - 3900
As you'll have seen from reading through, I'm not just listing cards, I do discuss strategy where there are strategic decisions about particular cards; in general though, it's cast creatures and turn them sideways - I'm not sure how much more I can say :).
If anyone has suggestions then feel free to say so but I haven't got much more to say beyond what's there. I was considering a "standard play" type writeup, but it's so dependent on your hand and what removal or blockers you come up agains that it's not really worthwhile.
Well, I owe you an apology. I just reviewed the link, not the actual Pauper Primer subforum. That thread is perfectly fine--I was working with the linked post as a base and saw suggestions without explanations, whereas the actual thread you have in the subforum is very clean and easily delineated into important parts.
Ah great, and I totally understand the confusion if you just read my initial list! There didn't end up being much of a gap between my initial post and the full post because I ended up having some time and so knocked it out.
Currently the meta is a bit on the lame side if you ask me, 34 different decks, and I see about 7-10 decks that are constantly placing in the DE. MGreen, affinity, ur post, ww, mbc, Delver blue(Faries?), tpps.
That's just from what I seen in the latest DE's, theirs usually the oddball FStorm and Dimir post and slivers even made an appearance.
Burn shows up even less than slivers, same with goblins but they take those places when either show up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dictators prefer an unarmed population.
Decks I play and stuff.
does anyone can explain why affinity and goblin aren't in primer any more ??? probably they're not tier1 decks now but a unique topic where to discuss decklist is better than many different threads open everyday... are you considering create a competitive forum over primers in wich discuss of all the oter archetypes that aren't tier1 (infect ,affinity slivers, rebels, ub flicker, esper storm, goblins, rdw, and so on...) with uniqe topics???
I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being a Goblin primer at any point in time... recently Boros Landfall and Affinity were removed... the landfall was because it isn't a current deck... affinity because it wasn't a primer... it was a list of deck versions, which you would be better off finding from mtgonline.com any ways
people need to stop asking this question... the primer for deck type X isn't there because no one wrote it...
Burn shows up even less than slivers, same with goblins but they take those places when either show up.
and that's not really true based on recent results.. we've had a surprising number of RDW showings and only 1-2 sliver decks... and goblins is always a deck while slivers/burn doesn't even show every week
out of curiousity would a rogue deck primer ever been greenlighted? i am considering doing one up for damn rats and am wondering if itd be worth my time
I'm pretty sure the way a Primer works, is that the deck needs to put up good enough results and be played enough to warrant a primer. But, at that point it wouldn't be a rogue deck. pick you poison I guess.
Good evening. As you may have noticed, we now have a Developing subforum. I wanted to solicit some feedback from the Pauper base as to what sort of guidelines you would like to have as the standard for what a Developing deck needs to be.
Fire away and/or message me with ideas and thoughts. Once we get the groundwork set up, it'll be available and we can start adding new decks or moving existing ones there.
ninja edit: I just saw that [Primer] was changed to [Established]
...and totally unrelated to your request for input -- As a Classic Pauper player, I would suggest a [Standard Pauper] split, if you're looking at additional sub-forums.
I suggest a more game-specific name of the subforum. "Magic online general" doesnt invoke to be a go-to place when talking about pauper specific, yet the pauper tab also exists in the casual subforum. "Why go here" is what comes to my mind when seeing two identically named tabs within two subforums. I also think it will improve traffic in this forum specifically because pauper is not something small or to be neglected (google pdcmagic). Just make it sparkle a little bit more.
Please update the primers with deck archetypes that are well known and played such as infect, storm (any version), delver tempo variants, elves,etc. The current primer selection is not nearly sufficient, then again - this might be fixed if the traffic of people looking for pauper arrive.
Alright, just a few questions for those of us present.
1) For the perceived Standard/Classic Pauper split, would we be naturally assuming that the existing Established/Developing forums concern only Classic?
1a) Stemming from here, given the interest, I would definitely petition the addition of a Standard Pauper subforum. However, I don't think I'd have any specific types of subforums for it at this point (Established/Developing). It's definitely a format, but the existing Daily Events don't consider it.
2) With regards to making Pauper its own separate part of The Game, I can forward that request to see where we'd go from here. I've had no real issue with it under Magic Online, because that's where the majority of the events are played out (yes, I know there are some paper events out there, but those don't get nearly as much coverage or care, sadly). I am all ears to pros and cons of moving it/the necessity of moving it.
I would naturally assume that the established & developing corner of the subforum of pauper is indeed classic. I am almost sure that it is the predominant type so a seperation into "established, developing, etc and then standard" would make sense.
Its honestly the word "general" in Magic online general subforum that seems to not make so much sense. It almost feels like we dont talk here about the game specific. For example, if you check all the subforums list, you can find a "Magic General" sub in magic fundamentals..which is certainly not devoted to a specific format. The pauper subforum should be, yet the name is almost identical with the exception of having online in it.
I would naturally assume that the established & developing corner of the subforum of pauper is indeed classic. I am almost sure that it is the predominant type so a seperation into "established, developing, etc and then standard" would make sense.
I second this. The legacy part has been around for a long time so we all assuming thats what format it is unless they say other wise in the title or first post.
i almost feel like any discussion in the "Pauper" area is decks... to bring into light established vs. developing doesn't that move all posts that would usually be in the "Pauper" area into the "Pauper: Developing" area?
i almost feel like any discussion in the "Pauper" area is decks... to bring into light established vs. developing doesn't that move all posts that would usually be in the "Pauper" area into the "Pauper: Developing" area?
A few could, but many shouldn't.
Developing sure feels like the place for decks that can money in DEs once or twice. It's not for people like me durdling around with a sub-par list for fun (U\G Tempo.)
I'd consider anything that is not an established and popular deck (but can money a daily event) developing. So anything designed to win packs that is not Delver, UR Post, UB Post, Storm, Infect, Fissure Storm, Infect, Stompie, Goblins, Burn, White Weenie, GW Auras, Affinity, Mono Black Rats, Dimir Aggro to be developing. Some examples of Developing would be WeeFiend, Cawblade, Gond Combo, Slivers (although maybe they could go into established due to history,) Elf Combo, Boros, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: Zombies, AntiTusk Vampires, BUG Graveyard, Bant Hexproof, UR Storm Delver Modern: Storm, Jund, Ghast Blaster, Elf Warriors Legacy: RUG Cascade, Imperial Painter, Affinity, Dredge, Elves, Merfolk, Pox, Dragon Stompie, Goblins, ANT, Belcher Classic: Delver, Dredge, Jacerater Draft: I will draft basically any format online (other than Masques) Pauper: MTGO's #1 most handsome Pauper Storm player
I realize it has already been said, but pulling this out of the MTGO general, and making it its own subforum would be very good for the Pauper sub-forum. It even makes sense now that there is actual support for the format coming from Wizards. I don't think we'll be seeing a Pauper GP any time soon, but it is arguably more supportable than Legacy due to the Reserved List, and I one can wish!
Otherwise, I would suggest we use Developing for all other decks that have primers written up and community interest. We could probably even do a weekly or monthly poll or something to vote decks into the developing section based on whether or not there is widespread belief that that deck has merit, or that it has been played consistently enough to warrant it (ie. TurboFog is never established, but it is always around).
I think our lack of primers for new decks is owing to the lack of anyone writing one. You have to find someone who is at least a tournament grinder, if not a regular winner, who posts here, and wants to do up a primer. Primers are a lot of work.
As for the developing subforum, that's pretty much what people use the main Pauper forum for - if you've got a weird brew, you post a thread there, and people talk about it.
We have to respect that MTGO is still much smaller than paper magic, so an MTGO-only format is going to be much smaller than a MTGO-and-paper one. Smaller population = less posting.
I'm not sure if Pauper could ever get sanctioned on paper. The card pool is really strange and arbitrary from a paper perspective, to the point where you'd need to just spell it out as a (really enormous) banlist. Maybe they could pare it down to just the cards that are actually too powerful for Pauper, i.e. Hymn to Tourach? It would be nice, though - I think you'd see a lot more people in here if you could win real-world sanctioned events in this format.
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!
I really think, that if Pauper had its own section it would see more activity. I think part of the reason people don't seem to play it in paper is because there is a lack of support. This could be combatted by generating interest in the format and having a set of paper additional bans that bring the format into line with the MTGO version (and this could include online release of some cards at lower rarity to reflect the fact that they were once commons.
Essentially my argument is, that making this a fully functioning section (like Legacy or Standard) would serve to improve awareness, and could increase the popularity of the section and the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
John Adams
Magic Intelligence - Now in the last stage of beta. With archetyps and pretty more data! A strong source for facts.. or as you can say statistics and decklists of MtG!
Trade List
That's a start, but it's not too deep. Most of the Primers, as you can see, are well-elaborated. This just states ideal card choices and decklists without any reasoning to follow. There's work to be done before I'd green-light it.
I suggest that if you want to make a test primer, you can use Testing Grounds for that purpose and contact me once you think it's ready for review.
[GTC] Gatecrash Patch for MWS (249/249)
Well, I was going off the format of the existing primers. At 3000 words, it's already more than 2-3x the word count of most of the established primers, and most of those only discuss card choices:
MUC - 800
storm - 1000
WW - 1100
MBC - 1500
Boros - 3800
UR Post - 3900
As you'll have seen from reading through, I'm not just listing cards, I do discuss strategy where there are strategic decisions about particular cards; in general though, it's cast creatures and turn them sideways - I'm not sure how much more I can say :).
If anyone has suggestions then feel free to say so but I haven't got much more to say beyond what's there. I was considering a "standard play" type writeup, but it's so dependent on your hand and what removal or blockers you come up agains that it's not really worthwhile.
Well, I owe you an apology. I just reviewed the link, not the actual Pauper Primer subforum. That thread is perfectly fine--I was working with the linked post as a base and saw suggestions without explanations, whereas the actual thread you have in the subforum is very clean and easily delineated into important parts.
It's good to go.
[GTC] Gatecrash Patch for MWS (249/249)
http://forums.pdcmagic.com/viewtopic.php?t=2585
Currently the meta is a bit on the lame side if you ask me, 34 different decks, and I see about 7-10 decks that are constantly placing in the DE. MGreen, affinity, ur post, ww, mbc, Delver blue(Faries?), tpps.
That's just from what I seen in the latest DE's, theirs usually the oddball FStorm and Dimir post and slivers even made an appearance.
Burn shows up even less than slivers, same with goblins but they take those places when either show up.
Decks I play and stuff.
Legacy Burn
Modern Mono U Tron
I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being a Goblin primer at any point in time... recently Boros Landfall and Affinity were removed... the landfall was because it isn't a current deck... affinity because it wasn't a primer... it was a list of deck versions, which you would be better off finding from mtgonline.com any ways
people need to stop asking this question... the primer for deck type X isn't there because no one wrote it...
and that's not really true based on recent results.. we've had a surprising number of RDW showings and only 1-2 sliver decks... and goblins is always a deck while slivers/burn doesn't even show every week
Deck List:
BMBCB
UBUB Control/TeachingsBU
Ha! My Pauper UG Post Deck Showed!
Classic
BPoxB
Legacy
GB Eva Depths (Primer By Me) BG
Monthly Academy Showcase!
An Introduction to Competitive Pauper! *Updated*
Pauper Meta Analysis & What Wizards Left Out!
Found at MTGO Academy!! Same Great Series, Same Great Content, Great New Home!! (yes that is me shamelessly trolling for more readers :))
Check me out on Twitter & Get a little MTGO Therapy
Extendo
Read my Blog!
Fire away and/or message me with ideas and thoughts. Once we get the groundwork set up, it'll be available and we can start adding new decks or moving existing ones there.
[GTC] Gatecrash Patch for MWS (249/249)
...and totally unrelated to your request for input -- As a Classic Pauper player, I would suggest a [Standard Pauper] split, if you're looking at additional sub-forums.
Decks I play and stuff.
Legacy Burn
Modern Mono U Tron
Please update the primers with deck archetypes that are well known and played such as infect, storm (any version), delver tempo variants, elves,etc. The current primer selection is not nearly sufficient, then again - this might be fixed if the traffic of people looking for pauper arrive.
Giving a +1 to the standard/classic separation.
1) For the perceived Standard/Classic Pauper split, would we be naturally assuming that the existing Established/Developing forums concern only Classic?
1a) Stemming from here, given the interest, I would definitely petition the addition of a Standard Pauper subforum. However, I don't think I'd have any specific types of subforums for it at this point (Established/Developing). It's definitely a format, but the existing Daily Events don't consider it.
2) With regards to making Pauper its own separate part of The Game, I can forward that request to see where we'd go from here. I've had no real issue with it under Magic Online, because that's where the majority of the events are played out (yes, I know there are some paper events out there, but those don't get nearly as much coverage or care, sadly). I am all ears to pros and cons of moving it/the necessity of moving it.
[GTC] Gatecrash Patch for MWS (249/249)
Its honestly the word "general" in Magic online general subforum that seems to not make so much sense. It almost feels like we dont talk here about the game specific. For example, if you check all the subforums list, you can find a "Magic General" sub in magic fundamentals..which is certainly not devoted to a specific format. The pauper subforum should be, yet the name is almost identical with the exception of having online in it.
I second this. The legacy part has been around for a long time so we all assuming thats what format it is unless they say other wise in the title or first post.
Deck List:
BMBCB
UBUB Control/TeachingsBU
Ha! My Pauper UG Post Deck Showed!
Classic
BPoxB
Legacy
GB Eva Depths (Primer By Me) BG
Monthly Academy Showcase!
An Introduction to Competitive Pauper! *Updated*
Pauper Meta Analysis & What Wizards Left Out!
Found at MTGO Academy!! Same Great Series, Same Great Content, Great New Home!! (yes that is me shamelessly trolling for more readers :))
Check me out on Twitter & Get a little MTGO Therapy
A few could, but many shouldn't.
Developing sure feels like the place for decks that can money in DEs once or twice. It's not for people like me durdling around with a sub-par list for fun (U\G Tempo.)
Modern: Storm, Jund, Ghast Blaster, Elf Warriors
Legacy: RUG Cascade, Imperial Painter, Affinity, Dredge, Elves, Merfolk, Pox, Dragon Stompie, Goblins, ANT, Belcher
Classic: Delver, Dredge, Jacerater
Draft: I will draft basically any format online (other than Masques)
Pauper: MTGO's #1 most handsome Pauper Storm player
Deck List:
BMBCB
UBUB Control/TeachingsBU
Ha! My Pauper UG Post Deck Showed!
Classic
BPoxB
Legacy
GB Eva Depths (Primer By Me) BG
Monthly Academy Showcase!
An Introduction to Competitive Pauper! *Updated*
Pauper Meta Analysis & What Wizards Left Out!
Found at MTGO Academy!! Same Great Series, Same Great Content, Great New Home!! (yes that is me shamelessly trolling for more readers :))
Check me out on Twitter & Get a little MTGO Therapy
Otherwise, I would suggest we use Developing for all other decks that have primers written up and community interest. We could probably even do a weekly or monthly poll or something to vote decks into the developing section based on whether or not there is widespread belief that that deck has merit, or that it has been played consistently enough to warrant it (ie. TurboFog is never established, but it is always around).
As for the developing subforum, that's pretty much what people use the main Pauper forum for - if you've got a weird brew, you post a thread there, and people talk about it.
We have to respect that MTGO is still much smaller than paper magic, so an MTGO-only format is going to be much smaller than a MTGO-and-paper one. Smaller population = less posting.
I'm not sure if Pauper could ever get sanctioned on paper. The card pool is really strange and arbitrary from a paper perspective, to the point where you'd need to just spell it out as a (really enormous) banlist. Maybe they could pare it down to just the cards that are actually too powerful for Pauper, i.e. Hymn to Tourach? It would be nice, though - I think you'd see a lot more people in here if you could win real-world sanctioned events in this format.
Essentially my argument is, that making this a fully functioning section (like Legacy or Standard) would serve to improve awareness, and could increase the popularity of the section and the format.