My weekly group recently tried doing a Pauper Standard format night, and I came up with a Green/Red deck similar to this in structure, although with many more defenders. While not really a tricky Johnny deck, the addition of more defenders including Vent Sentinels, which also add to Overgrown Battlements mana making ability, made for a powerful damage combo. In more than one game I had 5 defenders out, 2 of which were Sentinels, scalding people for 10 points each turn. I added in a few Ulamog’s Crusher so I had at least a couple creatures that weren’t walls, as well as something to sink my abundant mana into. Toss in a few Lightning Bolts and Naturalizes to round it off and it’s a pretty fun deck to play.
All of you, not only on this article but also on JVL's article, who think that this is a better BoaB deck than whatever it is that JVL comes up with are missing the biggest point - JVL's decks win games. This deck is not competitive.
2) JVL's deck was better because he took the dominant deck and wrote a column about it.
2) JVL's deck was better because he took the dominant deck and wrote a column about it.Which is Mike Flores's job.
Quick general question:Do you think there is a Pauper deck (legacy, standard, anything I guess) that could withstand a match with current RUG or Caw-Blade itterations?Hmmmmm...
There are plenty of legacy pauper decks that could hang with current standard decks. Now standard-pauper competing with regular t2 decks that would be quite a site. Maybe something combo/control.....lots of cheap burn/counters to control the board and something that goes for one big swing to win? As a fan of pauper, I like this article a whole lot more than the most recent BoaB. This standard list would likely get crushed in the current standard pauper meta, but, at least the author came up with something on his own and didn't just net-deck an outdated pauper decklist.