I use the split of snow and non-snow so that I can piggyback off of others' Extraplanar Lens and dodge effects that care about certain named lands (Wake of Destruction comes to mind, among others). It's a non-zero amount of benefit for no extra risk on my part (Avalanche not withstanding lol).
For Ruination, it would be like the third Moon, but it has to fight for a slot over both Manabarbs and Boom/Bust. Barbs gives too much damage (and will often times force a concession by a lot of decks) while I often cast Boom way more than Bust (so good with fetchlands or downright nasty with Strip Mine).
Perhaps Ruination could replace Burning Earth? Both four mana and heavily disrupt nonbasics. But I think I like my own nonbasics sticking around, a la manlands and stuff. But it's certainly a consideration to keep in mind.
Fireheart is good, real good. At the top of the curve though, what four drop is he better than? Avalanche Riders? No way, haha. Hound of Griselbrand? But he has to be killed twice, while otherwise having the same weaknesses of Fireheart. And I shouldn't be able to get more than one activation off per turn.That said, maybe I might test it over a different slot entirely...replace Possibility Storm? Perhaps?
Wild Guess is great, as you know already I'm sure. Better than Faithless Looting (net +0 CA vs net -1 CA).
I think downgrading the Pauper format was a good business decision on WotC's part, as I have been saying for years that pauper likely cannibalizes both other formats AND pack sales. Allowing players to pay $10-$15 for a tier-1 deck and then play that deck for the exact same prizes as players who spend $1K+ on Modern/Legacy/Classic always seemed like an insane choice to me from a business perspective.
The EV for playing pauper is simply too good to have it constantly available--why would you play anything else (unless you are testing for paper)? In my opinion, it is good to have it around as a "gateway" format w/ PEs so new players can get their feet wet without a huge investment though.
It's sad, but you may be right. Wizards needed to do something to keep the format fun and interesting a while back. If their program had supported something - anything - other than prize payout that could push Classic. I don't know what - maybe a special avatar that you could earn by playing in Classic - something. Too late now.
Wizards does need to find some way to revitalize a format with so few active players, but this wasn't it. No chance in the world that I can play Friday - it's 2:30pm on a workday for me. I'd have trouble making it if they started at 7:30 PDT on Fridays.
I was specualting, of course, about trying to attract European players. Other than that, I have no idea why they would change that. It was pretty clear what time Classic events could and would fire.
I'm hoping Wizards looks at the results and does some rebalancing. The idea of a MWF and a different TTSS schedule seems to offer a decent compromise. And sets the Sat. event at 7:30PDT - or maybe 6:30, since 7:30PDT is pretty late for me. Whatever, something that works for enough people to fire the events.
I went to the deck list first, and was a little confused. Then read the article and noticed it was for 1v1 which makes a lot more sense. Just a couple quick questions:
Why the snow lands? Am I missing something?
No Ruination? Seems like it would fit what you're talking about (costs 4 mana, resource denial, etc.)
Obisian Fireheart? It has an efficient body, and you can dump excess mana into it for consistent damage. I don't really play 1v1 but it seems like a possibility.
I do like seeing Wild Guess in a deck though, nice touch.
I agree with you that keeping the flashback draft a secret isn't very helpful for those of us with busy lives. i would have loved to do an mma draft as well, but was my time was already booked. i will be sure to use the links you provided to provide some feedback.
Hey Pete,
It is my opinion, and that of many of the Classic regulars on CQ that this new time slot is bad in every way for continuity of Classic DE’s.
As you know, the high majority of us have full time jobs and young families.
Thus making the 5:30 EST DE on Fri, Sat and Sun challenging.
For me personally it will be dinner time and then getting the kids ready for bed from 5-7 pm.
This will entail me burdening my wife to let me sit down for 3+ hours during prime time at home.
I don't foresee myself making many of the new time slots which makes me sad.
As for accommodation to the Europeans, the time slot is better for them, but still suboptimal as it will be in around 11:30 pm when the DE starts. That is pretty hardcore if you are jumping into a queue at that time of night.
I just don’t think this works for many people, and I don’t see them firing with any consistency.
Montolio
So if you want to build a purely fun version, it's not pricey. If you really want it to be stronger, every little fetch helps when you just need one more spell in the chain.
@ Brian Nordyke (FB post) - Blessing is very strong and usually ran in almost every other list I've seen for this deck, whether it be Modern or the Pauper version. While I usually wouldn't think much of it, that 1 colorless to cast it might actually make a big difference. A lot of the games I won out of nowhere often involved multiple "free spells" and having this many of them in the deck helps that.
The core of the deck is the combo; I'm starting to wonder if Apostle's Blessing might be playing it "too safe" and is actually slowing us down? It's certainly up for testing and discussion.
That said, I could see replacing Artful Dodge (even though it is more powerful than it looks) since it can save the creature from several of the cards you mentioned.
I like Slaughter Pact if you want to add the Black shocklands into the mix, I'd probably run it in the board though. I'm not a huge fan of the Blue pact in this. Unless you are absolutely winning the game on that swing, you'll probably lose the next turn. I mean, obviously winning swings like that happen often, but still iffy.
The problem with Wizard deciding the restriction for classic is that, they don't know anything about classic. They don't test or pay attention to classic unfortunetly, hence the situation we are in.
You have to expect a certain amount of animosity from the executives at Wizards/Hasbro to formats like Pauper. I've generally believed that they would see better profits appealing to a variety of interests in their product, instead of just trying to lock out any budget options. If you even mention Player Run Events in the chat the ORCs basically threaten to suspend your account. I always thought Pauper was a fine format if a little expensive at times. In any case it has been a great alternative to the major formats and enjoyed by many.
I invest my time and efforts into running the PRE of Heirloom and promoting it to exist despite what WOTC hands down as edict. I think that if you care about the communities of this game that you have to involve yourself at least somewhat with the grass roots of MTGO. The game has exceeding the boundaries it was designed for. At this point we don't need to play by their rules anymore.
Awesome deck! So there is an answer to Dimir Mill! :D Very well done, I was taking a break of Standard Pauper because of the oppression of dimir mill ;)
Great stuff again CME. Your points for and against were well thought out and logical for and against restriction. I am with Andy in letting WOTC decide restrictions. Since we all play this format regularly, I see there is a conflict of interest. Let an independent party aka wizards that does not play the format decide while supplying the data both for and against if needed. Now that I have said my two cents, long live stax. Also zachtolio, that name is freaking great.
I really liked Drafting MNP back in the day but paper drafting for me was practically free since mostly I did it with article credits and then friends sharing their winnings in after drafts.
For me Urza's Cycle drafts were much worse, experience wise.
You're missing the concept of opportunity cost. When WoTC sells a pack in the store they get $4 (roughly 4tix). But they give packs out in dailies for approximately 2.7tix when you take into account the ratio of entry fees to pack payouts. So they are subsidising, in an opportunity cost sense, each large daily event to the tune of ~$500 according to alex ullman's calculations.
There are good reasons why they might want to do this. Mostly obviously, doing so with standard and block increases secondary market prices of their current product which in turn incentivises people to draft them. That effect of pauper is essentially non-existent - even with the aformentioned out of print drafts, the price of legacy staples is what really drives price-demand in those formats (wasteland, FOW, misdirection, city of traitors etc. etc. and even the price daze is more about the current hotness RUW delver in legacy than pauper). Legacy and other non-pauper eternal formats also helps drive demand for secondary products like FTV and commander decks.
So when you're demanding that there be pauper dailies, you're essentially saying that WoTC should be actively subsidising the format by providing it with cheaper packs. It's really hard to see why they would want to do that. Sure, you'd make people happy, but you'd make people happy by just reducing the price of packs in the shop too. That doesn't mean it makes sense for them to do that.
And, again, it's not like they've banned pauper. If you want to play it, you still can. Think about this from a paper magic perspective. If you want to play paper magic but don't want to buy a standard deck, you can play all sorts of formats like commander or just casual and plenty of people do, but they don't expect WoTC to subsidise those formats with lucrative tournaments. In fact, most tourneys that WoTC do run in paper have worse EV than the 8- and 2-person queues which are still available.
I have a rebuttal to Andy's argument about past Standards or formats where "if you weren't playing Deck X you're playing the wrong deck."
There's never a time when people are literally all playing the same deck. Even in those mythic Urza's, Mirrodin, and Caw-Blade days, there were multiple decks being played. There are always attempts to beat the most dominant deck and exploit its weaknesses. A metagame with a strong but non dominant deck Deck A would have that one squarely on top for a while until Deck B came along and exploited it weakness, forcing Deck A to adjust but now it's weak to Deck C.
Classic is Deck A (Stax) remaining constant for years with other decks poking at its weaknesses - and sometimes winning. But there's only been one point in the last three years when it hasn't been a good time to play Stax, and that's when Delver decks were putting them down. When was that? 2011? I forget why the Delver decks went away, but that's not a playable deck anymore.
I'm sorry this whole argument gets into personal territory when it should be about the numbers.
If it helps, I've never played prison stax but I've won a bunch with Affinity since those Winter of Classic events way back when. I'd restrict Lodestone in a heartbeat.
I use the split of snow and non-snow so that I can piggyback off of others' Extraplanar Lens and dodge effects that care about certain named lands (Wake of Destruction comes to mind, among others). It's a non-zero amount of benefit for no extra risk on my part (Avalanche not withstanding lol).
For Ruination, it would be like the third Moon, but it has to fight for a slot over both Manabarbs and Boom/Bust. Barbs gives too much damage (and will often times force a concession by a lot of decks) while I often cast Boom way more than Bust (so good with fetchlands or downright nasty with Strip Mine).
Perhaps Ruination could replace Burning Earth? Both four mana and heavily disrupt nonbasics. But I think I like my own nonbasics sticking around, a la manlands and stuff. But it's certainly a consideration to keep in mind.
Fireheart is good, real good. At the top of the curve though, what four drop is he better than? Avalanche Riders? No way, haha. Hound of Griselbrand? But he has to be killed twice, while otherwise having the same weaknesses of Fireheart. And I shouldn't be able to get more than one activation off per turn.That said, maybe I might test it over a different slot entirely...replace Possibility Storm? Perhaps?
Wild Guess is great, as you know already I'm sure. Better than Faithless Looting (net +0 CA vs net -1 CA).
Thanks for the comments, it's great feedback!
I think downgrading the Pauper format was a good business decision on WotC's part, as I have been saying for years that pauper likely cannibalizes both other formats AND pack sales. Allowing players to pay $10-$15 for a tier-1 deck and then play that deck for the exact same prizes as players who spend $1K+ on Modern/Legacy/Classic always seemed like an insane choice to me from a business perspective.
The EV for playing pauper is simply too good to have it constantly available--why would you play anything else (unless you are testing for paper)? In my opinion, it is good to have it around as a "gateway" format w/ PEs so new players can get their feet wet without a huge investment though.
It's sad, but you may be right. Wizards needed to do something to keep the format fun and interesting a while back. If their program had supported something - anything - other than prize payout that could push Classic. I don't know what - maybe a special avatar that you could earn by playing in Classic - something. Too late now.
Wizards does need to find some way to revitalize a format with so few active players, but this wasn't it. No chance in the world that I can play Friday - it's 2:30pm on a workday for me. I'd have trouble making it if they started at 7:30 PDT on Fridays.
I was specualting, of course, about trying to attract European players. Other than that, I have no idea why they would change that. It was pretty clear what time Classic events could and would fire.
I'm hoping Wizards looks at the results and does some rebalancing. The idea of a MWF and a different TTSS schedule seems to offer a decent compromise. And sets the Sat. event at 7:30PDT - or maybe 6:30, since 7:30PDT is pretty late for me. Whatever, something that works for enough people to fire the events.
I went to the deck list first, and was a little confused. Then read the article and noticed it was for 1v1 which makes a lot more sense. Just a couple quick questions:
Why the snow lands? Am I missing something?
No Ruination? Seems like it would fit what you're talking about (costs 4 mana, resource denial, etc.)
Obisian Fireheart? It has an efficient body, and you can dump excess mana into it for consistent damage. I don't really play 1v1 but it seems like a possibility.
I do like seeing Wild Guess in a deck though, nice touch.
Just in case you guys are interested, I've been using the (much reviled) Google+
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112985435842421618683/dashboard/overview#+...
Sorry!
Sorry for the triple post.
I agree with you that keeping the flashback draft a secret isn't very helpful for those of us with busy lives. i would have loved to do an mma draft as well, but was my time was already booked. i will be sure to use the links you provided to provide some feedback.
Hey Pete,
It is my opinion, and that of many of the Classic regulars on CQ that this new time slot is bad in every way for continuity of Classic DE’s.
As you know, the high majority of us have full time jobs and young families.
Thus making the 5:30 EST DE on Fri, Sat and Sun challenging.
For me personally it will be dinner time and then getting the kids ready for bed from 5-7 pm.
This will entail me burdening my wife to let me sit down for 3+ hours during prime time at home.
I don't foresee myself making many of the new time slots which makes me sad.
As for accommodation to the Europeans, the time slot is better for them, but still suboptimal as it will be in around 11:30 pm when the DE starts. That is pretty hardcore if you are jumping into a queue at that time of night.
I just don’t think this works for many people, and I don’t see them firing with any consistency.
Montolio
Bingo!!
Currently on MTGO traders the main deck is:
167.17
but take out the Fetch lands and it is:
28.73
So if you want to build a purely fun version, it's not pricey. If you really want it to be stronger, every little fetch helps when you just need one more spell in the chain.
There is a deck like this in Pauper as well that puts up solid results. Our esteemed site overlord, Joshua Claytor, talked about it this very week - http://puremtgo.com/articles/accumulated-knowledge-eye-candy
Thanks for reading!
@ Brian Nordyke (FB post) - Blessing is very strong and usually ran in almost every other list I've seen for this deck, whether it be Modern or the Pauper version. While I usually wouldn't think much of it, that 1 colorless to cast it might actually make a big difference. A lot of the games I won out of nowhere often involved multiple "free spells" and having this many of them in the deck helps that.
The core of the deck is the combo; I'm starting to wonder if Apostle's Blessing might be playing it "too safe" and is actually slowing us down? It's certainly up for testing and discussion.
That said, I could see replacing Artful Dodge (even though it is more powerful than it looks) since it can save the creature from several of the cards you mentioned.
I like Slaughter Pact if you want to add the Black shocklands into the mix, I'd probably run it in the board though. I'm not a huge fan of the Blue pact in this. Unless you are absolutely winning the game on that swing, you'll probably lose the next turn. I mean, obviously winning swings like that happen often, but still iffy.
The problem with Wizard deciding the restriction for classic is that, they don't know anything about classic. They don't test or pay attention to classic unfortunetly, hence the situation we are in.
You have to expect a certain amount of animosity from the executives at Wizards/Hasbro to formats like Pauper. I've generally believed that they would see better profits appealing to a variety of interests in their product, instead of just trying to lock out any budget options. If you even mention Player Run Events in the chat the ORCs basically threaten to suspend your account. I always thought Pauper was a fine format if a little expensive at times. In any case it has been a great alternative to the major formats and enjoyed by many.
I invest my time and efforts into running the PRE of Heirloom and promoting it to exist despite what WOTC hands down as edict. I think that if you care about the communities of this game that you have to involve yourself at least somewhat with the grass roots of MTGO. The game has exceeding the boundaries it was designed for. At this point we don't need to play by their rules anymore.
X-
Awesome deck! So there is an answer to Dimir Mill! :D Very well done, I was taking a break of Standard Pauper because of the oppression of dimir mill ;)
Good artilc - how much does this deck cost? I like it a lot!
Great stuff again CME. Your points for and against were well thought out and logical for and against restriction. I am with Andy in letting WOTC decide restrictions. Since we all play this format regularly, I see there is a conflict of interest. Let an independent party aka wizards that does not play the format decide while supplying the data both for and against if needed. Now that I have said my two cents, long live stax. Also zachtolio, that name is freaking great.
I really liked Drafting MNP back in the day but paper drafting for me was practically free since mostly I did it with article credits and then friends sharing their winnings in after drafts.
For me Urza's Cycle drafts were much worse, experience wise.
The chart is really an overview of what it is all about. They have to take a lot at it to be sure what they are getting. - Sandra Dyche
The introduction is really great. It sets the tone of what the whole game is all about. - Richard E. Dover
Water is becoming scarce in England. That sign is ominous to something worse. - Richard E. Dover
LOVE YOU AND I AGREE GAINS!!!
-ZACHTOLIO
It would be super if you would playlist the drafts on youtube
You're missing the concept of opportunity cost. When WoTC sells a pack in the store they get $4 (roughly 4tix). But they give packs out in dailies for approximately 2.7tix when you take into account the ratio of entry fees to pack payouts. So they are subsidising, in an opportunity cost sense, each large daily event to the tune of ~$500 according to alex ullman's calculations.
There are good reasons why they might want to do this. Mostly obviously, doing so with standard and block increases secondary market prices of their current product which in turn incentivises people to draft them. That effect of pauper is essentially non-existent - even with the aformentioned out of print drafts, the price of legacy staples is what really drives price-demand in those formats (wasteland, FOW, misdirection, city of traitors etc. etc. and even the price daze is more about the current hotness RUW delver in legacy than pauper). Legacy and other non-pauper eternal formats also helps drive demand for secondary products like FTV and commander decks.
So when you're demanding that there be pauper dailies, you're essentially saying that WoTC should be actively subsidising the format by providing it with cheaper packs. It's really hard to see why they would want to do that. Sure, you'd make people happy, but you'd make people happy by just reducing the price of packs in the shop too. That doesn't mean it makes sense for them to do that.
And, again, it's not like they've banned pauper. If you want to play it, you still can. Think about this from a paper magic perspective. If you want to play paper magic but don't want to buy a standard deck, you can play all sorts of formats like commander or just casual and plenty of people do, but they don't expect WoTC to subsidise those formats with lucrative tournaments. In fact, most tourneys that WoTC do run in paper have worse EV than the 8- and 2-person queues which are still available.
Good back and forth on the cast this week.
I have a rebuttal to Andy's argument about past Standards or formats where "if you weren't playing Deck X you're playing the wrong deck."
There's never a time when people are literally all playing the same deck. Even in those mythic Urza's, Mirrodin, and Caw-Blade days, there were multiple decks being played. There are always attempts to beat the most dominant deck and exploit its weaknesses. A metagame with a strong but non dominant deck Deck A would have that one squarely on top for a while until Deck B came along and exploited it weakness, forcing Deck A to adjust but now it's weak to Deck C.
Classic is Deck A (Stax) remaining constant for years with other decks poking at its weaknesses - and sometimes winning. But there's only been one point in the last three years when it hasn't been a good time to play Stax, and that's when Delver decks were putting them down. When was that? 2011? I forget why the Delver decks went away, but that's not a playable deck anymore.
I'm sorry this whole argument gets into personal territory when it should be about the numbers.
If it helps, I've never played prison stax but I've won a bunch with Affinity since those Winter of Classic events way back when. I'd restrict Lodestone in a heartbeat.