Can an all-common deck win?

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi there! New to MTG, but I've built a few cool decks so far - infect, trample, ramp and plant decks; all green - but had a burning question on my mind that I hadn't found the answer to: Can you create a really good, often-winning deck made entirely out of only common rarity cards?
there is an entire format dedicated to it: Pauper
proud member of the 2011 community team
Yep, there are many forums dedicated to it, I wish wotc gave more hoots for the format.
I miss the old days.
Based on the OP, Im guessing that he is asking whether an all common deck could be competitive outside of just playing other pauper decks.

 

Exactly. Yeah, something that could potentially win in many situations if the right cards/situations arose.
Yes. Before Zendikar block rotated out, I had a Kiln Fiend-based deck made entirely out of commons (Okay, there were technically a few uncommons in there, but they were easily replacable burn spells because I had more Forked Bolts than Burst Lightnings). I could pretty regularly take it to a FNM and do well for myself. Usually not top-tier, but a respectable showing. The currrent Standard inheritor of the deck style is all-in Infect. I haven't put one together, and I think it usually tends to have more non-common cards in it, but you can still make a Pauper version and take it to a normal (low-competitiveness) Standard tournament and put up a respectable showing. If Lady Luck smiles upon you a bit in your draws, you might even win.
Rules Nut Advisor
too bad Rancor was bumped up to Uncommon or you'd have a quite scary common deck
proud member of the 2011 community team
Mono-blue is your best bet for an all-common deck that can actually win.  Most counterspells are at the common level, and even Delver of Secrets is common!

Mana Leak
Negate
Cancel

Ponder
Index
Think Twice
Gitaxian Probe

Vapor Snag
Unsummon
Disperse
Downpour

Delver of Secrets
Aether Adept
Mist Raven
Archaeomancer
Impaler Shrike
Gryff Vanguard
Oculus
Scroll Thief
Stormbound Geist

With some cards off that list you could make a deck that counters or bounces all of their spells.  You'll get there with combat damage that gets through, since they have no blockers, and tons of deck manipulation/card draw.
It depends on what you mean by often winning?  Decks that have access to all rarity don't usually have ability to win the majority of matches.  Though you can make an all common, or all common and uncommon deck that is competative.  Then you also start to get into a point where your play ability comes in.
If you mean standard I think you could compete with some decks but probably nothing tier 1. It's possible you could steal a game from a tier 1 deck but I doubt you would win a match. I think a better idea is to budget yourself to $50 and stick a few rares in.
True post count: 9,900 Thanks Wotc for not counting archived posts. If I post without capital letters than means I'm posting from my phone. For some reason it hates typing capital letters. Go_Texans on MTGO. Texans 12-4 Wildcard: W Texans 19 Bengals 13 Divisional: L Texans 28 Patriots 41 Another awesome season!
Constructed decks don't care about rarity (but Limited ones do), but many of the most powerful cards in constructed decks are commons and uncommons, so it's not all that hard to build a standard one. That said, it just seems like stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime to me. Rares and Mythics tend to have more variant gameplay, which is in it's own right important to playing.
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)
Rarity doesn't determine value. There are plenty of unplayable rares and even unplayable mythics. *waves at Tibalt* By contrast, many of the best removal cards are common.

Hell, Delver of Secrets, while not printed on the common sheet because of how DFCs work, is common. Ponder? Common. Mana Leak? Also common.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Rarity doesn't determine value.


:q
I assume you meant power, given the rest of your sentence.

Anyway, yes, it's possible to make good common-only deck. However, as you're cutting off at least half of your avaliable options, it's most likely going to be less than optimal. With a two-colored deck, you lose out on dual lands, and with a monocolored one, you're already lacking options.
So in short; they can be good, but rarely optimal.

Yxoque wrote:
This forum can't even ****ing self-destruct properly.

IMAGE(http://img.pokemondb.net/sprites/black-white/anim/normal/plusle.gif)

I have an all commons deck that I made just for the challenge of it, which is what I believe the OP might have been getting at. And aside from the challenge, its usually good for if you want to play someone not quite as seasoned or someone who just doesnt have the cards to make an awesome deck. 
I suspect that if they printed Delver at rare it would be a $20 card at the lowest.
True post count: 9,900 Thanks Wotc for not counting archived posts. If I post without capital letters than means I'm posting from my phone. For some reason it hates typing capital letters. Go_Texans on MTGO. Texans 12-4 Wildcard: W Texans 19 Bengals 13 Divisional: L Texans 28 Patriots 41 Another awesome season!
No you need at least 20 rares for a deck to be good.

;)

Na, na, rares help in some decks but sometimes a deck doesn't need a 6 CMC jank rare to be in there.

You are Red/Blue!

No you need at least 20 rares for a deck to be good.

;)

Na, na, rares help in some decks but sometimes a deck doesn't need a 6 CMC jank rare to be in there.



I am curious, please enlighten me....
I miss the old days.
Rarity doesn't determine value.


:q
I assume you meant power, given the rest of your sentence.



Trade you a Carnival of Souls for a Sinkhole.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt


Trade you a Carnival of Souls for a Sinkhole.


Pretend that Sinkhole was a rare.

Yxoque wrote:
This forum can't even ****ing self-destruct properly.

IMAGE(http://img.pokemondb.net/sprites/black-white/anim/normal/plusle.gif)

No you need at least 20 rares for a deck to be good.

;)

Na, na, rares help in some decks but sometimes a deck doesn't need a 6 CMC jank rare to be in there.



I am curious, please enlighten me....

....you don't need to do this:

EHRMAGERD!!! I PULLED A PHYREXIAN SWARMLORD!!!  *Puts in deck just because it's a rare

I'll clarify..

A lot of the time; rare < common

You are Red/Blue!

Rarity doesn't determine value.


:q
I assume you meant power, given the rest of your sentence.



Trade you a Carnival of Souls for a Sinkhole.


Better example: Trade you a Lightning Bolt for Rootbound Crag.

Cards that have been out of print for over ten years don't count. (And Sinkhole has been out of print for more than 15) Given roughly equal power level, the rarity is the critical factor for cost. Delver of Secrets and Snapcaster Mage are two of the most powerful cards in Standard right now. One can be purchased for less than 50¢ each, the other costs at least $15 and probably more.

Yes, cards that are common/uncommon can eventually become expensive, but the number is much smaller than the number of rares/mythics, and it takes longer for those cards to gain value and the power level required is much higher.
Immature College Student (Also a Rules Advisor)
Vektor480 has a wicked infect pauper deck that is one of the fastest decks you can make, regardless of format.
The only thing I don't like about Pauper is that it uses Legacy rules.  I wish you could specify which format you wanted to use for Pauper.  Like Standard Pauper, Block Pauper, Extended Pauper, Modern Pauper, etc.  EDH Pauper might even be interesting.

SG
EDH pauper is severly limited unless you make an exception for the Commander, only Kamigawa had common legendary creatures, most of them mono-colored

and yes, I'd like to see Standard and Modern Pauper (the other formats are probably too small)
proud member of the 2011 community team
EDH pauper is severly limited unless you make an exception for the Commander, only Kamigawa had common legendary creatures, most of them mono-colored

and yes, I'd like to see Standard and Modern Pauper (the other formats are probably too small)



Wrong, legends had many common legends.

In fact, it's the only set with common legends
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Defaul...[C]&type=+[%22Legendary%22] (That are worth using)
SG, they got more.

forums.pdcmagic.com/
I miss the old days.
those are old-frame
noone wants those!

(and while even Kami was before my time, Legends was WAY before my time ;))
proud member of the 2011 community team
those are old-frame
noone wants those!

(and while even Kami was before my time, Legends was WAY before my time ;))



I find old frames work better for generals, as it makes them look like grizzled veterans. The textures that look like old scroll paper is neat.
Hi there! New to MTG, but I've built a few cool decks so far - infect, trample, ramp and plant decks; all green - but had a burning question on my mind that I hadn't found the answer to: Can you create a really good, often-winning deck made entirely out of only common rarity cards?



To answer this persons question that everyone somehow cannot seem to keep on subject is YES you can. While good cards help, that doesn't really mean anything...You can have the worst cards in the world and win constantly.

Magic pretty much relies on these factors
Drawing lands -  If you draw too many, not enough, or the right colors, you will usuallly lose 
Access - It doesn't matter what you have in your deck, if you cannot get to it, it won't be doing you any good.
Use your cards/using them properly = you can have the best cards. if you don't use them right, then you might as well not even play with them.
Timing rules - not destorying a creaure that is attacking, not castiing a stifle before storm is put on the stack, things like that
Mistakes - Not bocking a creature attacking you because you thought it had flying when it didn't.
To add to what cookedeye said and offer up a deck idea, Infect Decks built with just commons are fast as the creatures don't require much mana.  Plus, 10 infect tokens, on the other player, and you win.  Just an idea.  I can try to track down the deck list that someone from these forums gave to me for a Standard Pauper event my local card shop ran during an FNM recently if you'd like.  Just PM me if you'd like me to track down the deck list.

That said, Pauper Mill and Pauper Delver decks work well, too.

SG
Vektor480 has a wicked infect pauper deck that is one of the fastest decks you can make, regardless of format.



Yeah, but infect's busted in Pauper, where you have Giant Growth variants, Blighted Agent, Rancor, Teetering Peaks, Assault Strobe, and that's just what I can think of right now.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Infect is also lame.

To answer this persons question that everyone somehow cannot seem to keep on subject is YES you can. While good cards help, that doesn't really mean anything...You can have the worst cards in the world and win constantly.



That's not accurate. Card quality is very important to winning games. I can't recreate a Grave Titan deck by playing inferior cards like Mass of Ghouls, and even if I draw two copies my opponent's one Grave Titan could kill them both. Let's look at some deck archetypes and talk about how they translate into Pauper.

Aggro: This kind of deck has a goal of winning very quickly. In Legacy it plays good cards like Lightning Bolt and Tarmogoyf, in Standard Pillar of Flame and Hellrider. Creature-based strategies are weaker because common creatures tend to be bad, but there are many good common burns spells. I have a mono-red deck with Lightning Bolt, Fireblast, Keldon Marauders and similar cards, and it can beat any deck too slow to stop me in the first five turns. Because control is weak in Pauper, these decks tend to do well at all-common tournaments.

Control: Control decks gain card advantage in the early game in order to play more lands than the opponent and successfully neutralize the other player's threats. While Legacy control decks have devastating sweepers such as Terminus and amazing bombs like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Pauper players are forced to rely on Seismic Shudder and Ulamog's Crusher. These decks are the most difficult to play in Pauper.

Combo: Many combo pieces are uncommon or higher, so the main Pauper combo decks involve Glistener Elf, Kiln Fiend, or Empty the Warrens. These decks have the common feature of winning around turn 3 if left undisrupted, faster than just about any aggro deck. Combo decks sacrifice consistency for speed, and the best decks are the ones with the greatest chance of outracing the other decks in the format. While Legacy has some inconsistent combo decks that can win one turn 1 or 2, most Pauper combo decks try for a turn 3 kill. Painter's Servant + Grindstone, one of the most consistent combos in Legacy, wins on turn 3 at the earliest, while only the most aggressive Pauper combo decks can do the same.

Aggro-Control: This well-known archetype includes Caw-Blade and Delver of Secrets decks, with a basic strategy of playing an efficient threat and protecting it until it kills the opponent. Aggro-control, or "fish" decks are extremely good at preying on disorganised decks that can't break through a wall of counterspells in time. Playing this archetype in Pauper means we can't use some of its best cards, such as Snapcaster Mage and Force of Will. Nevertheless, the existence of Delver of Secrets and many effective counterspells makes this one of the best types of deck that can be built with only commons.
Can you create a really good, often-winning deck made entirely out of only common rarity cards?


Not in a real format. If you are playing EDH or Pauper, maybe. There aren't enough slots in any given set or group of sets to make commons good enough. Some of them, by default, have to suck. Just like some rares have to suck, and some uncommons have to suck. So with a mix of the better of each of the rarities, you won't be able to make an "often-winning" deck.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
I agree with JUSTTERRORIT, If you take the competetive environments (Vintage, legacy,standard) it's not possible to build something that wins often because it will need a lot of luck.

I've actually tried winning legacy with a all commons deck and I tried several times for a whole year, which is about 64 tournaments.

In the heavy environments you just lose for the lack of not having force of will in the deck, and I've met a few who played all common pauper and took it to standards, also with no real success.

I even had a period where I put black lotus out as a prize to anyone in my playarea who could get first place with it just once. Noone took the prize but it really started up a serious discusssion on what commons "COULD" have taken them there.

Until we see something like mental misstep becomming legal again, the all common-deck won't stand a chance
Sign In to post comments