What are /r/Pauper's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

This article had a link to another article that encouraged players to provide feedback:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/new-era-2018-05-03

I just provided feedback a few minutes ago - a request to make Pauper an official format in paper.

Maybe a few thousand people requesting could make something happen?

All I want is for them to declare it an official format, make all paper commons legal (in addition to online commons), and then maintain a ban list for the new combined Pauper format.

We keep saying they have little financial incentive to do this - but at the same time the expense for making paper Pauper an official format and maintaining an official ban list would be minimal, I would think.

I'd just like to point you to the results of the latest online Pauper challenge: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/pauper-challenge-2018-05-28
Here is the top 10:
1: Boros Monarch
2: Burn
3: UR Delver
4: Boros Monarch
5: Tireless Tribe combo
6: Gobins
7: Affinity
8: Stompy
9: BW Pestilence
10: Dinrova Tron
How diverse a meta do you want!?
I understand your local meta may be heavy in certain decks, but that's not representative of the format as a whole. The supposed dominance of Delver, burn and Tron (or any deck really) in terms of results simply DOES NOT EXIST. This is why people push back against calls for bannings. We have a fun and balanced format and bannings will not enable new archetypes - they will inevitably lead to an imbalance, and certain decks becoming more dominant. Delver has a role in keeping big control decks in check. I'm sure if Delver were banned, the people calling for bannings now will be complaining that Tron is suddenly so dominant.

Yes. 420dragon has done quite a bit of work with the card in familiars. Look at the last top 8 of the pauper challenge to see his list. (3rd Place)

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/pauper-challenge-2017-12-18

I don't think it's lame and dumb to apply the MTGO rules to paper. Pauper is defined as an MTGO format (https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/pauper), so it makes sense to use the same rules for legality if you are porting the format to paper. Having a single list of cards for paper and online is a good thing, I think.

As much as people want to say it's clear pauper is commons printed on MTGO, the fact is people still get confused. There are threads on this here frequently. Last week I was playing in my LGS and someone cast Goblin Grenade against me. Why do people get confused about something that seems simple? I don't know, but they do. Seems clear to me that WotC should step in and be the source of truth on this one. Officially, pauper is an MTGO-only format and so paper pauper is "undefined" in a sense. Of course, I agree with people here that the format is the MTGO legality, but there's not an official definition.

"X on a stick" means "you get the effect of X other card and also get a creature (the stick)." In standard right now, [[Ravenous Chupacabra]] is [[Murder]] on a stick.

"Hardcast" means basically to pay full price for the card. Some expensive cards like [[Griselbrand]] or [[Emrkaul, the Aeons Torn]] are put in decks that aren't interested in hardcasting them, but hope to "cheat" them into play with cards like [[Sneak Attack]].

"Flickering" refers to effects that exile a card and return it to the battlefield, re-triggering their enter the battlefield abilities.

"Card advantage" means netting cards in a transaction (spending one Mulldrifter card to draw two new cards, netting a card in the exchange) and/or outdrawing your opponent. See this Reid Duke article on card advantage aimed at newer players

Maybe not the kind of suggestion you're looking for but isn't this exactly the kind of thing the Challenger Decks were made for? Is using these an option?

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/challenger-decks-lists-2018-02-23

https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/whats-the-best-challenger-deck-and-what-are-the-first-upgrades/

Better to know than to believe ;)
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-digital/improving-our-approach-magic-online-data-2018-02-12
Leagues are one thing and challenges are another one. In challenges we get the top 32 decks, regardless of archeotype. I dont mean to be rude, but it took me 1 second to google "how does wotc publish league results" and find the link that I copied here for?you :)

I use these for bulk sleeves - http://www.cheapmagicsleeves.com/bulk-pro-matte-ultra-pro-mix-and-match-sleeves-1200ct/

And boxes can be found on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EABSFRA/ref=psdc_2522048011_t1_B0002TT3B6

Brewspythemagicguy has been streaming pauper lately. He brews his own decks though so you wont really see him play staples. He streams every weeknight around 8 pm eastern. He is currently working on a rebels/tron deck.

Maybe check the previous one as well.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/pauper-challenge-2018-05-14
There was certainly a time several weeks ago when Delver was over-represented, but the online meta has adjusted, by playing different strategies (as evidenced by recent results). If there had been no adjustment, banning might have been justified.
I don't see any problem with "blue cards" specifically being over-represented, as long as decks and strategies are diverse. It's an eternal format, it's a bit unrealistic to expect all colors to be perfectly balanced. Blue has powerful support cards. Part of the fun of eternal formats is playing with those cards. That's one of the things that makes Pauper attractive.

Totally. It isn't already getting League 5-0's or anything.

inb4 "but that's just one deck".

The deck is good and you're going to see a lot of variations of it.

Prove me wrong though, go get some top 4 baby.

There was actually a deck running Escape Routes in the league results posted today. 7th from the top.

if you only have time to read one article today, then make it this one:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/cantrip-down-memory-lane-2006-07-31

I promise you that it is worth the time.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/pauper#paper

mtggoldfish has a decent system of keeping track of the metagame, so does mtgtop8.com. Due to recent changes, with mtgo and how they report results or decks, these sites may eventually not be as helpful in the future.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-online/magic-online-posted-decklist-changes-2017-07-05

Not proud of how long it took me to figure out posting pictures to Reddit but...here's my baby

Main deck: https://cubeupload.com/im/FEmZTj.jpg

Side: https://cubeupload.com/im/G2zwG3.jpg

The deck is not currently tuned at all as my gauntlet is unfinished and I haven't played on modo since the release of mm3, but I would say about 40% of the cards in my gauntlet are foiled and I have 2 binders of most pauper staples foiled as well.

One more... out of curiosity I looked up the actual Boros list from the challenge.

The lifegain and prevention it has is 4x Wind-Scarred Crag 2x Strands main, 2x Lone Missionary 1x Strands side. Plus of course they can recur the Crag with Skyfishers and Garrisons.

This is apparently enough to make it a terrible matchup for burn? I'm vaguely surprised...

(1 life here and there doesn't sound like much - I mean, basically every control deck runs gainlands and Karoos, Boros is not unique with this - and with 2-3 Strands it's far from guaranteed they'll even draw one)

((What I was expecting to see is 4x Radiant Fountain, and then I might ask if Molten Rain wouldn't be helpful against that, but))

(((N.B. I'm just trying to understand the interactions better, not cast doubt or anything)))

Have you considered War Falcon, Razor Golem, Porcelain Legionaire, Sacred Cat, and/or Prismatic Strands?

Also, your list looks very similar to one that took 2nd place in a Pauper Challenge last June.

I believe that one can derive the answer from Comp Rules entry 305.7 I posted, plus the differing texts of Navigator's Compass and Unstable Frontier.

However, we also already have the Dominaria Release Notes from the leak in March, which should settle this once and for all:

> Gaining a basic land type causes the target land to gain the corresponding mana ability. Because the new basic land type is "in addition to" its other types, it keeps the abilities it had previously.

EDIT: Okay, I see that you've found this same entry in the Dominaria Release Notes, so I'm not sure what ambiguity could possibly remain. One could potentially argue that the "abilities losing" part of 305.7 is strange, or that the "in addition" exception is even stranger, but I am not seeing how the rule 305.7 leaves anything ambiguous about the way Navigator's Compass works and why it is different from Unstable Frontier.

Replay: https://www.twitch.tv/zemanjaski/v/55918126

Match 1, 5m Izzet Blitz vs Mono G Stompy

Match 2, 36m Izzet Blitz vs Counter-Rebels

Match 3, 1h6m Izzet Blitz vs RW Heroic

Match 4, 1h29m Izzet Blitz vs Mono R Goblins

Match 5, 2h8m Mono Black Control vs Acid Trip

Match 6, 2h48m Mono Black Control vs Tron

I felt this was a really instructive stream, was playing pretty well. Discussing some spoilers, mana base construction for new standard and some card evaluation discussion for MBC sideboards.

Feedback welcome, please subscribe :)

I used OBS. Here is a preety good guide about how to use it, directly from wizards themselves https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-lifestyle/how-stream-magic-2016-02-11

Thanks. I highly recommend to you to get bolts. They are very fun cards to play and can be put inside tons of decks. Best red spell in the history of magic! And yup, electrickery can be really good against tokens.

Are you familiar with D3.js?

I worked as a programmer at a company where I would just translate excel documents into CSV with python and then run them through visualization JavaScript.

I would love if Wizards dumped a pile of spreadsheets on my desk!

Good post.

To make it easier to non spanish readers, here are the links to the lists of Unplayable Commons and Playable Uncommons and Rares.

If you're looking for a current competitive deck, here's a link to mtgo's pauper league from june 13th. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/pauper-constructed-league-2018-06-13

If you have something in mind, you can also search through the old ones and look for an older competitive deck that may not fit the current meta.

Here's a mono black midrange deck that looked fun! uses unearth with chittering rats for discard with gray merchant as the finisher.

Creature (19) 4 Chittering Rats 4 Cuombajj Witches 3 Dusk Legion Zealot 4 Gray Merchant of Asphodel 4 Phyrexian Rager Sorcery (11) 4 Chainer's Edict 4 Sign in Blood 3 Unearth Instant (4) 3 Disfigure 1 Snuff Out Enchantment (4) 4 Oubliette Land (22) 3 Barren Moor 2 Bojuka Bog 17 Swamp 60 Cards Sideboard (15) 1 Snuff Out 1 Cartouche of Ambition 2 Crypt Rats 2 Duress 2 Relic of Progenitus 2 Shrivel 2 Thorn of the Black Rose 3 Wrench Mind

There's so many different variations of aggro in the format, take your pick. From stompy to affinity, etc. Also many different competitive tribes like fairies, elves, goblins, rebels, and more.

Good luck in finding the perfect decks for your father

Here's one of the original articles introducing those terms!
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2002-03-08

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo\-standings/pauper\-challenge\-2018\-06\-04

The fact it only has 4 Familiars would worry me, especially with no Reaping the Graves. I've always felt familiars flounders if it can't stick one. Is this a meta-call, in that there just isn't much targeted removal atm? Or is this build just less reliant on having one out?

A Soul Sisters deck did really well in the last Pauper challenge and looked pretty optimised, so I would definitely check out that. In terms of your list though, it's a decent starting point but some cards seem iffy. I think [[Guardian's Pledge]] is significantly better than [[Marshalling Cry]]. [[Suture Priest]] is fine if you want more than 8 Soul Sister effects but otherwise I think the 1CMC ones are better (although Suture Priest could be a good SB card against some decks). Acrobatic Manoeuvre is way too expensive, doesn't really do a lot and doesn't work at all with tokens so I think I'd just cut it all together. Ninth Bridge Patrol seems super meh as well.

[[Battle Screech]] is the best token producer in the format so there's really no reason not to play all 4 (could maybe go down to 3 for curve considerations but it's the best card in the deck IMO). Also, you absolutely NEED electrickery protection in your 75; I think [[Veteran Armorer]] is perfectly maindeckable, the difference between x/1s and x/2s in combat is a pretty big deal.

Anyway, check out the list in 6th place here, I think it looks really good personally, and clearly has game since it did so well - https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/pauper-challenge-2018-05-07

Not on the official list I'm seeing here...https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/pauper...was it just never printed online?

Anyway, I'll have to look into the list...seems interesting. I only ever paid attention to choking sands in MBC.

There's a unique 5-0 Gruul list on the most recent Pauper Constructed League (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/pauper-constructed-league-2018-04-11) that you might be interested in. [[Jund Hackblade]] and [[Naya Hushblade]] for the win!!

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/pauper/full#online

Above is the full Pauper meta listing on MTGgoldfish and probably the best single resource.

Also, here is the only definition of Pauper that Wizards of the Coast recognizes, for when questions of "Is X legal in Pauper?" come up. Because they will. Between that and Scryfall, you should be able to keep Hymn to Tourach out of your meta. And Barbary Apes, not that anyone cares to play that.

As the note in the cell for that date says, there was no top-8 runoff in that Challenge. You can look at the official results and see for yourself. All the other challenges had an elimination tournament, but not that one.

(if there isn't a number, it's one card) [[Sweep Away]]

[[Compelling Argument]] x 4

[[Drag Under]]

[[Anticipate]]

[[Ancient crab]] x2

[[Cloud manta]]

[[Coralhelm guide]]

[[Tattered haunter]]

[[Sleep paralysis]] x2

[[Exhultant cultist]]

[[Catalog]]

[[Turn aside]]

[[Stitched mangler]]

[[Nibilis of dusk]]

[[Disperse]]

[[Umara entangler]]

And the contents of the Intro Pack

>A logic filter being applied to the selection process does not nullify the randomness of the selection.

Yes, it does. As soon as you start making choices about which decks to pick, the results are no longer random.

>A pseudorandom generator is by definition not random.

I didn't say it was. I said it's reasonable to use a pseudo-RNG for choosing which decks to post; the results don't need to be truly random.

>Your subjective definition of what constitutes random is far from a "fact" as you stated.

I didn't define random anywhere, let alone claim it as a fact.

>The fact all lists reported are 5-0 does not mean that that 4-1 decks are not in the pool.

It doesn't matter if 4-1 decks are in the pool, because they're not being selected.

>We do not know if all of the logic in the random filtering alg.

The filtering is irrelevant.

>The fact that a deck is reported or not reported has no tie to the frequency that deck appears and/or succeeds.

I'm not trying to deduce the actual frequency at which each deck is played in the league. I'm simply compiling WotC's results and presenting them as numbers.

>Your extrapolation of the data is scary. You are literally making assumptions at every step.

I'm not extrapolating or making assumptions. The numbers you see are simply the number of times a deck was posted in a time period divided by the total number of days in that time period. It's all based on the results posted by WotC; I'm not fabricating anything.

>This is the only information we have on the current deck publishing procedures. If it isn't in there you are making it up. You are not speaking in facts.

We also have the results, which display the records of the posted decks.

You have the biggest ego I have ever seen. A logic filter being applied to the selection process does not nullify the randomness of the selection. A pseudorandom generator is by definition not random. Your subjective definition of what constitutes random is far from a "fact" as you stated.

The fact all lists reported are 5-0 does not mean that that 4-1 decks are not in the pool. We do not know if all of the logic in the random filtering alg. The fact that a deck is reported or not reported has no tie to the frequency that deck appears and/or succeeds.

Your extrapolation of the data is scary. You are literally making assumptions at every step.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-online/magic-online-posted-decklist-changes-2017-07-05

This is the only information we have on the current deck publishing procedures. If it isn't in there you are making it up. You are not speaking in facts.

In yesterday's Challenge there was a MBC deck sporting Crypt Rats and [[Cartouche of Ambition]] for the insane lifelink + sweeper for 1 toughness.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/pauper-challenge-2017-11-20

While it's easy to say 'this deck' or recommend from the top 9 comparative decks or what have you, I have another idea:

Look at the decks that people suggest, and then re-brew them for multiplayer. Give this a read:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/how-build/five-steps-building-multiplayer-magic-deck-2016-01-26

Pay particular attention to each player effects and rattlesnake cards. Use that strategy to brew competitive recommendations into multiplayer powerhouses.

To successfully condescend to someone requires you to be above them.

"Sweety" is a term of endearment and has no more authoritative spelling than does "pee-paw". Thanks for giving such a clear demonstration of your towering intellect.

I wish you were a troll or shitposter. Experience tells me you are more likely someone new to the format and that the best case scenario is: I will correct you, you will admit you were wrong, and I'll be having this exact conversation with your functional reprint next week. That's best case and it is far more likely that you will go to your grave while admitting fault as rarely as possible.

To save my sanity I'll stop replying now, tag you as "on probation" and let you work with what I've already given you. If I see improvement from you, additional shipments of wisdom will arrive . Keep only the truths you can perceive. Cancel at any time. There is no obligation to comprehend more.

An MTGA Historic Pauper discord. It has an ongoing league and many jank MTGA historic pauper decks posted.

https://discord.com/channels/542759768108957706/542759768108957708

I use the really thin ultra pro ones from Amazon. You can get like 5 for under 10 dollars, they work great. I think I have 14 pauper decks. https://www.amazon.com/Ultra-Pro-Magic-Pokemon-YuGiOh/dp/B074DVF48M/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=mtg+deck+box&qid=1633832604&sr=8-4

These are Ryker sleeves from Amazon. They're actually kind of great. They come as 150 pcs which is odd.

Here's how I"m planning on storing this. Thanks for your input! :D

https://www.amazon.com/BCW-Prime-X4-Gaming-Box/dp/B083JJ35HD/ref=sr_1_1?crid=23GPEG545IDEE&dchild=1&keywords=bcw+prime+x4+gaming+box&qid=1609661196&sprefix=BCW+prime+%2Caps%2C1391&sr=8-1

Just picked up 10 packs of dragonshields for $56 US.

https://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Shield-Standard-Sleeves-Display/dp/B08GCZJMTD/ref=pd_cart_vw_crc_1_1/145-3881857-6802069?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B08GCZJMTD&pd_rd_r=e3078d9d-9f12-4066-8bda-be23901e5cc9&pd_rd_w=dpeGs&pd_rd_wg=Cl1b7&...

Should be a 3 or so year supply. Only issue is having all the same color but whatever.

As others have posted, cheap sleeves might not be what you want. However, to answer your question, penny sleeves may be worth a look. They got their name because you can get ~100 of them for roughly a dollar

$25 on Amazon doesn't go far when you're buying commons. The sellers there pay much higher fees than on TCGPlayer and the card prices will reflect that.

A $.90 card costs $1.20, $2.80 costs $3.40, $0.70 costs $1.11, etc. The $15 white tokens deck /u/tommamus linked is just shy of $30 on Amazon.

I'd steer you towards buying something like sleeves instead. Those are around 40% off what my shop charges. Funnily enough, I bought mono-w tokens in the shop a few weeks ago and it was ~40% cheaper in the shop than it would have been if I ordered it from Amazon.