Finally, storm gets the axe in pauper.

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.a...
grapeshot, EtW and invigorate banned in pauper.

In my opinion, long overdue but at least its finally happened. I may actually play pauper again.
Shall be fun to watch card values flip flop. Storm was probably the most expensive deck and I can only assume now all those cards will tank hard. 

So happy.
What would make pauper playable again would be banning Glimmerpost, not banning something like EtW that every deck can have an answer for.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/50738226/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
No consistency or forethought. I predict Temporal Fissure will need to be banned soon.
As someone that recently start playing Pauper Storm, I can see why the deck was neutered. I have combo'd turn one, combo'd through hate, mini-combo'd and then saved up to do it again *and* I still hadn't figured out the deck's full power. Storm wasn't very interactive and also took up a lot of SB slots. Now, the question is, does Bogles take over Infect's slot as the aggro-combo menace?
I don't mourn for TPPS. Casting spheres is entertaining for only so long. EtW and Invigorate are pretty unnecessary bans but will change the character of the format a lot. Familiar Storm will prob be pretty broken. That or some other Flicker deck.
Trying to help "I'm original" people build better decks is self-sabotage: Good advice will inevitably be ignored because someone did it before. The gist of Magic is going to MWS/MTGO, playing Island, Ponder and watching the opponent ragequit.
I'm kinda sad they didn't post any explanation... maybe they felt they didn't need to I thought maybe they'd post on the forums where they said they'd post bannings from now on, but I haven't seen anything there.

I'm not unhappy about these bannings but I would like to know why they chose to kill Storm decks (well, the red ones anyway) but not Post decks.
More informaton will be given with tomorrows downtime info.
Thanks Kristijan! Will it be posted to the Magic Online Community Group blog, or elsewhere?
Blog yes.
I'm so far not a fan. Mostly because I don't really see the reason. I don't play these decks my self (so I'm not worried about that) but I don't really lose to them either.

Grapeshot/Empty the Warrens storm (TPPS) is a tier 1 deck; I used to play it a lot. Its strong point is that it is really good game one. I would estimate it wins like 60 to 70 % of its first games, but sideboarding brings that back down to a reasonable level. It is easily hateable. Every color has ETW hate avalible, and while grapeshot is harder to hate they usually need two to kill with which should be difficult for them if you play any sort of disruption. It can be discard, land destruction, or counterspells. The only color that can't actively disrupt (white) has Standard Bearer, that unicorn, and Prismatic Strands. If you really think TPPS is overpowered then just ban one of them (grapeshot I guess). Now you've gone and killed the only real combo deck in the format. We're not down a deck, we're down an archtype.

Infect is just a bad combo deck. It's combo depends on fragile creatures in a format rife with cheap creature kill. I can't remember the last time I played a deck that had a bad matchup vs. infect.

I don't think these decks warranted getting destroyed. This is a vintage format so I don't it's good practice banning cards just to change things up, but if new decks and strategies emerge that would be a positive side effect. The thing is I don't see that happening. I hope I'm wrong, but I really can't think of any decks that were being kept down by TPPS and/or infect. So, I guess we'll see.

Infect isn't a combo deck. It's just normal Magic, sped up dramatically, with the speed (or, rather, the threat of it - actual T2 kills with a sane protected combo style build are rare) adding a dose of mindgames.

As far as TPPS goes, the problem with it (the Nighthavk style 4 Grapeshot 2 Shred Memory style version) is that the main way of actual interaction is just racing. The deck is strong and playing it is interesting,  but the games are still a load of land, sphere, land, sphere... Not very nice, all told.

Warrens and Invigorate don't face those kinds of issues, there is plenty completely maindeckable hate available for both. I think the main motivation for those is the general "wtf I lost" - Goblinstorm and Infect can actually win T2 even if it's rare, mono-Grapeshot Storm basically can't at all. Some people like it, most don't.

I don't agree we have lost combo. We have lost faster-than-aggro combo, but the format has plenty of combo deck archetypes left that can be polished to competitiveness and were usually oppressed by the faster combo decks - I expect Familiar Storm to take off big time, for example. One of that deck's main weaknesses is that it routinely spends a few turns doing basically nothing. It destroys fair decks like nobody's business, is resilient, but slow enough to be interacted with, and was utterly destroyed by traditional combo. The same applies to Axebane Guardian.dec and various other permanent-based combo strategies.

That's what I'm looking forward to. I like doing unreasonable things, but I like them being a result of playing Magic. Legacy Storm decks play Magic because they have engine cards to free up space and pack disruption and the opponents can pack stronger disruption as well. I look forward to the same being true in Pauper - the experience of playing an interactive combo deck is the best there is.
Trying to help "I'm original" people build better decks is self-sabotage: Good advice will inevitably be ignored because someone did it before. The gist of Magic is going to MWS/MTGO, playing Island, Ponder and watching the opponent ragequit.
Where are the reasonings? Kick the bloggers off from playing Farmville!
Trying to help "I'm original" people build better decks is self-sabotage: Good advice will inevitably be ignored because someone did it before. The gist of Magic is going to MWS/MTGO, playing Island, Ponder and watching the opponent ragequit.
More informaton will be given with tomorrows downtime info.



Thanks Kristijan! Will it be posted to the Magic Online Community Group blog, or elsewhere?



Blog yes.



So here is the refereed to downtime info (unless I misunderstood). There is no additional information therein about the Pauper bannings.

I must at this time admit that I don't know who kristijanH is. This profile page, as far as I can tell, gives no information to whether this person is or is not affiliated with WotC, so I don't really know what to make of this.

I would like to write a few paragraphs on how uncaring it is to not release an explanation with bannings and then further to say you will in two days, and then also not do that. But I want to make sure I have the facts right first. So, to be clear, my questions are:

1. Who is kristjanH?

2. Is the page I linked the page he/she refereed to?

3. If so when are we actually going to get the explanation?
I think KristjanH said that the explanation would be posted in the blog because that is what usually happens. The changes do not go into effect until February 6, so the explanation might still be coming.
I'm just another user like you

As pirateAmmo noted I just expected to be relased in the blog as usual.

Why it wansn't I have no idea.

Also WotC employees have an icon uder their names.

Maybe I should have written that the info should be given in the blog instead of it will be given. My bad.
The B&R information usually comes from the B&R team, and often separate from the actual announcement.  I have heard this info is coming, but I am not sure when it will be published. Since there were changes to paper formats, I expect it to show up in the Daily MTG. Occasionlly Lee will post in the MTGO blog as well, since he is part of that team, but he has been out for the last week on the Magic Cruise (which I hear is pretty awesome). 

I appreciate your efforts to help, kristijanH, as your advice to watch the blog is generally correct. Keep it up, and sorry for any confusion.   
 
The B&R information usually comes from the B&R team, and often separate from the actual announcement.  I have heard this info is coming, but I am not sure when it will be published. Since there were changes to paper formats, I expect it to show up in the Daily MTG. Occasionlly Lee will post in the MTGO blog as well, since he is part of that team, but he has been out for the last week on the Magic Cruise (which I hear is pretty awesome). 

I appreciate your efforts to help, kristijanH, as your advice to watch the blog is generally correct. Keep it up, and sorry for any confusion.   
 


Getting engaged even, according to the scuttlebutt.

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

I'm just another user like you

As pirateAmmo noted I just expected to be relased in the blog as usual.

Why it wansn't I have no idea.

Also WotC employees have an icon uder their names.

Maybe I should have written that the info should be given in the blog instead of it will be given. My bad.



Ah, very good. No worries.

The B&R information usually comes from the B&R team, and often separate from the actual announcement.  I have heard this info is coming, but I am not sure when it will be published. Since there were changes to paper formats, I expect it to show up in the Daily MTG. Occasionlly Lee will post in the MTGO blog as well, since he is part of that team, but he has been out for the last week on the Magic Cruise (which I hear is pretty awesome). 

I appreciate your efforts to help, kristijanH, as your advice to watch the blog is generally correct. Keep it up, and sorry for any confusion.   
 



The thing is that explaination for the paper banning(s?) were already published, and with the B&R announcment. So I don't see any indication to expect more information on the Daily MTG.

WotC_K, would it be possible for you to track down when and where the explaination for the Pauper B&R changes will be posted? If not, who should I be talking to?
In the absence of the promised information I will speculate about the pauper bannings.


Invigorate : This common was at $10 on all the bots. $10 for a virtual common is rude, so we ban it.
Grapeshot : Has Storm keyword. No answer to storm in pauper so we ban it
Empty the warrens : See Grapeshot

(note - we would have banned Temporal Fissure too but our previous ban on Frantic Search seems to have that particular storm under control, but watch this space)

Occasionlly Lee will post in the MTGO blog as well, since he is part of that team, but he has been out for the last week on the Magic Cruise (which I hear is pretty awesome).  



It's even more awesome if on that cruise you give your GF a special Magic deck with a special custom card spliced into it and a very special ring.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about - Mr Lee Sharpe now has a future Mrs Sharpe - Link

Classic Quarter
(www.classicquarter.com)
An article, In with the New!, was published today on the main Magic site. The first third featured Pauper and had a nice overview of some competive decks available. It seemed aimed at people who have never played Pauper, and I'm sure it was informative for them. Hopefully that kind of exposure will attract new players.

I just want to make sure no one mistakes it for an explaination of the recent Pauper bannings. To be specific this was the only sentence pertaining to the motive:
The Storm decks that finished with Empty the Warrens and Grapeshot were becoming oppressive and Infect decks with access to Invigorate were ending games of Pauper before there was any game to be played.



I don't really know what "becoming oppressive" means with regards to the storm cards and I really feel like you could do a lot of damage to these combo decks by just banning grapeshot. The bit about infect is true. The thing is, these decks have been around since Time Spiral and Scars of Mirrodin, respectively, premiered. Don't let the present tense of the verbs fool you; They haven't really changed that much both decklist-wise and in meta game composition. So either Wizards just now became aware that Pauper is indeed a format they support, or this "explanation" is woefully lacking.

Compare this one sentence about Pauper with the six fleshed out paragraphs about modern that were posted simultaneously with the B&R list announcement. Modern gets statistical analysis of the meta game, long term goals for the format, an explanation of why certain decks were detrimental to those goals, and an explanation of why the banned cards were chosen to damper those decks.

Now I know you can't talk about which pauper players/decks were winning Grands Prix but it really wouldn't be that hard to churn out four or give paragraphs going into the details I listed.
I just want to make sure no one mistakes it for an explaination of the recent Pauper bannings. To be specific this was the only sentence pertaining to the motive:
The Storm decks that finished with Empty the Warrens and Grapeshot were becoming oppressive and Infect decks with access to Invigorate were ending games of Pauper before there was any game to be played.


That was just Jacob Van Lunen's opinion on the bannings. He does not work at Wizards.
That was just Jacob Van Lunen's opinion on the bannings. He does not work at Wizards.


If a writer is published on the wotc site then it's reasonable to think his views reflect wotc unless there's a disclaimer. I tend to think that he does work for wotc, albeit possibly sans contract or payment. I expect he was asked to write that article, and did not just submit it unilaterally.
An article, In with the New!, was published today on the main Magic site. The first third featured Pauper and had a nice overview of some competive decks available. It seemed aimed at people who have never played Pauper, and I'm sure it was informative for them. Hopefully that kind of exposure will attract new players.

I just want to make sure no one mistakes it for an explaination of the recent Pauper bannings. To be specific this was the only sentence pertaining to the motive:
The Storm decks that finished with Empty the Warrens and Grapeshot were becoming oppressive and Infect decks with access to Invigorate were ending games of Pauper before there was any game to be played.



I don't really know what "becoming oppressive" means with regards to the storm cards and I really feel like you could do a lot of damage to these combo decks by just banning grapeshot. The bit about infect is true. The thing is, these decks have been around since Time Spiral and Scars of Mirrodin, respectively, premiered. Don't let the present tense of the verbs fool you; They haven't really changed that much both decklist-wise and in meta game composition. So either Wizards just now became aware that Pauper is indeed a format they support, or this "explanation" is woefully lacking.

Compare this one sentence about Pauper with the six fleshed out paragraphs about modern that were posted simultaneously with the B&R list announcement. Modern gets statistical analysis of the meta game, long term goals for the format, an explanation of why certain decks were detrimental to those goals, and an explanation of why the banned cards were chosen to damper those decks.

Now I know you can't talk about which pauper players/decks were winning Grands Prix but it really wouldn't be that hard to churn out four or give paragraphs going into the details I listed.



Storm was hit in Modern too - Seething Song was banned. So it could just be a case of "hey, isn't this deck a menace in Pauper too?"

Go draft, young man, go draft!



Storm was hit in Modern too - Seething Song was banned. So it could just be a case of "hey, isn't this deck a menace in Pauper too?"




Well they're two vastly different formats so I don't know how many comparisons you can draw between them. But maybe. I wouldn't caracterize storm as a menice in Pauper, but I can see why some would.

This sort of speculation is fine if that's what you're into, but I want to make sure we get an official explaination. I have never heard of a format where the motives behind the B & R list were secret, so I hope the explaination will be comming soon.


Storm was hit in Modern too - Seething Song was banned. So it could just be a case of "hey, isn't this deck a menace in Pauper too?"




Well they're two vastly different formats so I don't know how many comparisons you can draw between them. But maybe. I wouldn't caracterize storm as a menice in Pauper, but I can see why some would.

This sort of speculation is fine if that's what you're into, but I want to make sure we get an official explaination. I have never heard of a format where the motives behind the B & R list were secret, so I hope the explaination will be comming soon.



Some of the Tribal Wars bannings have been pretty opaque in the past... Niche format that it is, I expect no different. I wonder if Pauper is being treated similarly?

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)


Some of the Tribal Wars bannings have been pretty opaque in the past... Niche format that it is, I expect no different. I wonder if Pauper is being treated similarly?



This is what I am afraid of. I don't want to accuse Wizards of this yet, maybe they are just being slow about releasing the explanation. But it could be that they're dragging their feet because there is no explanation.

That said, Pauper is the second most popular MTGO constructed format so I would hope they are taking this seriously. And if they're not taking this seriously, then why do anything at all? The format was fairly healthy. No one deck was dominating, and we very recently had a new deck appear; that hexproof enchantment deck. Call me crazy but I feel like that's what you're looking for in a vintage format. Now I'm not saying it was unreasonable to ban anything; I'm just saying it's not obvious -- So an explanation would be appreciated.
This was published today on the main site. Copied here for reference.


Pauper B&R Explanation


by Erik Lauer


Beyond permission spells, the Pauper format has a limited number of answers to storm spells such as Empty the Warrens and Grapeshot. The DCI waited to see if those answers were sufficient to support a diverse competitive metagame. Statistically speaking, they are not. Storm's worst matchup is against a Delver deck with an abundance of permission. Its second- and third-worst are other Storm decks and Infect decks, respectively. Most other decks have few answers and not many turns to deploy them. In effect, a typical aggressive deck's main option is to race against a faster opponent. While there are somewhat more answers to Empty the Warrens than Grapeshot, few decks have sufficient answers even against that. While the DCI has decided to ban these cards from Pauper, this style of deck is still competitive in Legacy. A somewhat different style of Storm deck, using Temporal Fissure, may still be a competitive option in Pauper.


Infect decks bring a different situation. Since the deck wins by attacking with creatures, many decks can interact with it. However, the speed, featuring many wins on turn three or earlier, can be overwhelming for a great deal of decks. In particular, Invigorate costs zero mana, but the additional damage is equal to 40% of the poison counters needed to win. It also lets the Infect player, even when tapped out, protect an infect creature from a wide variety of damage-based removal. That makes it particularly difficult for other decks to effectively interact with the Infect deck. To allow for a more diverse metagame, the DCI has banned Invigorate.

Excellent catch and repost LME.

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

Thank you, WotC, for making this available, it's better late then never. It would be nice though if you could make this information available concurrently with the B&R announcement (like you did with modern). When news like this breaks people like to talk about why it happened and whether or not it was a good idea, and that's hard to do without an official explanation. These cards have been legal for years and you can update the online B&R list every month, so why the rush?

I just want to point out that this:
Most other decks have few answers and not many turns to deploy them. In effect, a typical aggressive deck's main option is to race against a faster opponent. While there are somewhat more answers to Empty the Warrens than Grapeshot, few decks have sufficient answers even against that.


is inaccurate with regards to Empty the Warrens. Every deck has available to it cheep and reliable answers to Empty the Warrens (Echoing Truth, Echoing Decay, Electricity, Sandstorm, Krark-Clan Shaman, and Unholy Light among others) and if you look at the decklists most decks run at least one of these cards and most decks maindeck at least one of these cards.

I also thought it was interesting that the reason given for all cards was "To allow for a more diverse metagame". I was some expecting talk of these cards are too powerful, or these decks are too fast, or even that they wanted to make Pauper a more accessible format to new players and these decks were off putting. But there was none, which is a good thing. I think those are poor reasons to ban a card in this format. "To allow for a more diverse metagame" is a cause I can get behind. I sure hope these bans accomplish that goal.
Thank you, WotC, for making this available, it's better late then never. It would be nice though if you could make this information available concurrently with the B&R announcement (like you did with modern). When news like this breaks people like to talk about why it happened and whether or not it was a good idea, and that's hard to do without an official explanation. These cards have been legal for years and you can update the online B&R list every month, so why the rush?

I just want to point out that this:
Most other decks have few answers and not many turns to deploy them. In effect, a typical aggressive deck's main option is to race against a faster opponent. While there are somewhat more answers to Empty the Warrens than Grapeshot, few decks have sufficient answers even against that.


is inaccurate with regards to Empty the Warrens. Every deck has available to it cheep and reliable answers to Empty the Warrens (Echoing Truth, Echoing Decay, Electricity, Sandstorm, Krark-Clan Shaman, and Unholy Light among others) and if you look at the decklists most decks run at least one of these cards and most decks maindeck at least one of these cards.

I also thought it was interesting that the reason given for all cards was "To allow for a more diverse metagame". I was some expecting talk of these cards are too powerful, or these decks are too fast, or even that they wanted to make Pauper a more accessible format to new players and these decks were off putting. But there was none, which is a good thing. I think those are poor reasons to ban a card in this format. "To allow for a more diverse metagame" is a cause I can get behind. I sure hope these bans accomplish that goal.


If they really wanted a more diverse metagame, they would have banned Glimmerpost. Get ready for UR-Post Spring.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/50738226/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
I may not have enough experience to comment on storm but as someone who has run infect in pauper i can say the format has plenty of answers to invigorate, any bounce, counterspell, daze, standard bearer and the most effective and annoying in my experince diabolic edict. If your gonna nerf infect decks you shouldave considered nerfing that glimmerpost deck...with infect i have enough trouble when my opponant starts ramping mana from post but atleast the life gain was irrelevant, idk how other decks deal with it


the reason given was "It also lets the Infect player, even when tapped out, protect an infect creature from a wide variety of damage-based removal. That makes it particularly difficult for other decks to effectively interact with the Infect deck. To allow for a more diverse metagame, the DCI has banned Invigorate."

1st of all when i piloted infect if my opponant was a good player he would use the damage-based removal on his own turn to kill my guy so even if my guy lived i still had to waste a pump spell to keep him alive and its 1 less pump spell ill have in my hand should i attack when he passes the turn

2nd if there worried about creatures being protected from damage based removal with free pump spells why didnt they just ban mutegenic growth instead?


3rd, the reason mentions most wins for infect occuring on or before turn 3, in my experince atleast against control decks in the format this deck has to rush them and win by turn 3 if not the deck just stalls and it ends with a slow painfull game loss, of course should my opponant be playing a combo deck its basicly comes down to whoever goes off faster anyway...

storm is a straight combo deck as far as i can tell, however infect is not a straight combo deck, if i were to give it a catagory it would be aggro-combo...meaning the deck needs creature[s] plus a combination of other cards/spells to win...the deck cant win if it just draws creatures and likewise it cant win if it draws spells but none of them creatures
"Aggro" decks that can easily win through multiple opposing blockers on turn 3 aren't "aggro".
Sign In to post comments