Pauper is a Big Format that lack high profile events. Outside a specific subset there are few who pay attention to the ebbs and flow of the format. Yet as time marches on more and more cards are added. Considering that commons help to drive limited play the same themes featured in draft year after year get new cards to help supplement their strategies.



The amount of inertia that a new card needs to overcome to make its way into Pauper is massive. The weight of existing cards, often cheaper than the newest model, makes it so recent releases only make waves when the sheer force of volume and power of new angles of attack start to matter. This is not an accident but rather a function of the Bell Curve of Big Formats.









At the apex are formats with tons of apparent diversity but also are ones that have trouble supporting the mass of existing strategies in a healthy competitive environment. In order to fully explain this, let us start at either end.



On the left we have smaller formats. Standard and the bygone Block live here. Here we see a contained quantity of cards where those who make the game have the most possible say. Standard is tested internally before release as it is the most widely played format. This is logical as if people are going to be constantly playing games of Standard then it should hold up under that much scrutiny.

What results, at least recently, is a format that has multiple strategies that make use of hyper-linear strategies - Heroic or Devotion - to more general good stuff decks - Abzan - with lots of points in between. With no one strategy being utterly dominant it allows Standard to withstand the volume of games being played. Given the ability to curate the cards available to Standard through release, Wizards is able to easily supply answers that make sense on all axes.



Following this the format trends towards being known. With a finite number of options and having these tools under such direct influence of the designers we can start to see how metagames develop. Dominant strategies are found but the seeded answers are then uncovered. In time decks cycle through popularity as cards find their ways in and out of the maindecks and sideboards.



And all of this is feasible because of the attention these formats get both before and after release. Sure - occasionally there will be a mistake and the combination of Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge Mystic will end up requiring some clean up.



Standard persists because of scrutiny. In order to make sure the most popular format is healthy and fun a specific environment is crafted. Wizards is able to exert the most possible control in this sphere and is able to turn the dials on threats and answers. Here answers can be laser focused to help craft good game play. One needs to look to the recent ubiquity of Thoughtseize to see that broad answers in narrow formats can lead to some less than ideal moments.



Yet cards do not vanish from the world once they leave Standard. Instead the themes survive and occasionally take root in other formats. Once they enter the wider world the blinders are removed. Suddenly the carefully pruned format has met cards no longer kept kempt. What may have been a premium card in its own Standard has been relegated to role player or bench warmer in the larger world.



The inertia is real.



Looking at the far right end of the curve we can imagine Legacy and Vintage. Here the game has access to the very best spells and the highest power level. There are fewer eyes on these formats as the scarcity of key cards makes it hard to run Pro Tours. Magic Online provides an outlet but when compared to the mountain that is Standard the number of viewed Legacy and Vintage events is the mole hill. These formats are curated more by adherents than the game makers.



Why is this? The stakes, relatively speaking, are low. Without the same constant grind of Grand Prix and Pro Tour there is less attention spent to making sure these formats experience the same bill of health as Standard. Many players expect to play the best cards at the cost of true balance.



Sure - these formats have variety. Legacy has a historical volume of seemingly viable decks and Vintage has recently disproven the “turn two or die” myth. What these formats may lack in diversity of specific strategy choices (blue decks or hard linears) they make up for in strategic complexity. The players here self-regulate.



If Vintage or Legacy were put under the Sunday stage on a regular basis it would make sense that Wizards would do more to make sure those modes achieve some level of balance. Instead they currently are content because in addition to supremely potent threats are similar powerful answers.



Take Legacy; a format defined by the ability to run four copies of Brainstorm is held in check by the presence of Force of Will to hold down powerful spells and Wasteland to hinder mana development. Force is a wide reaching answer that comes at minimal (actual) cost. Other cards exist in a similar sphere: Swords to Plowshares, Terminus, Lightning Bolt, Thoughtseize. Legacy has a litany of answers that are the skeleton key to the problem doors. At the same time while there are a diversity of decks they often fit into somewhat similar buckets, which makes selecting the proper sideboard cards to combat multiple angles slightly (ever so slightly) simpler. It is in part because these silver-bullets are more akin to mortar shells.



If Standard is curated by Wizards and their release schedule then Legacy and Vintage are curated by the cards themselves. Only those strategies with enough momentum propelling them forward are able to reach the escape velocity needed to make it into regular orbit of these formats. Wizards cannot pay the same level of attention to them simply because they need to focus their energy on making the new cards balanced. Cards like Treasure Cruise are going to happen because they are good for today but throw the past into a tizzy.



So we have come to the middle of the Bell Curve. Here is where I place Modern and yes, Pauper. Focusing on Modern we have a format that has a large card pool and a ban list that has had a reasonable amount of care. The goal is to promote variety and welcome a diversity of play style. However the weight of history has become a factor. The decks promoted from Standards gone by have tools from the subsequent years and many of the powerful answers that help to keep larger formats in check are unavailable to Modern in that they miss the demarcation line. One of my favorite descriptions of the format comes from Hall of Famer Elect Eric Froehlich on the latest episode of Constructed Resources. Paraphrasing, he describes Modern as a format that contains a large number of strategies that need very specific sideboard cards to stop and that if you come prepared with the right cards AND are able to draw them, then anything can succeed.



As a result of this dynamic the format can appear incredibly varied. It is fun as just about every sort of deck is actually viable. Given the potency of sideboard cards it is possible to completely dodge bad card or have your opponent fail to draw them. The decks are, for the most part, of a similar power level and aside from specific super-powerful hate cards, the format is fairly open.



Pauper resides in a similar space to Modern. There is a rather expansive card pool stretching back to some of the game's’ earliest releases. The format has access to many of the cheapest spells available to all of Magic. It is also populated with many key elements of linear strategies from Standard (and Limited) formats gone by. Pauper has a relatively flat power curve at the individual card level but there are decks that are clearly better than others. What Pauper lacks, however, are the kind of broad answers that makes Legacy and Vintage dynamic or the overwhelming bullets available to Modern.



What makes me say this?

What is the best removal spell in Pauper?



It has access to Lightning Bolt but that won’t stop a Gurmag Angler or Spire Golem. Diabolic Edict might, but that card lacks utility against decks that go wide with Cloud of Faeries or Mogg War Marshal. So maybe Electrickery is the answer? Except Myr Enforcer and Atog might show up. The fact is that while removal matters in Pauper the options are starting to match up poorly with the creatures present in the format. Given the current trends with removal this is not likely to change.



What about sideboard hate? Outside Gorilla Shaman there are very few cards that mean the other deck has no chance. Instead we see a trend akin to Standard where sideboard cards help to massage matchups more than create dominating situations. Unlike the left side of the curve the texture of Pauper cannot be curtailed the same way. Because nothing leaves the barrier to entry is incredibly high. Lightning Bolt may not be the best removal spell but it is everywhere. Similarly Spellstutter Sprite and Cloud of Faeries make it so that one and two drops have to pack quite a punch lest someone get completely locked out of a game once behind. Pauper is simply too large to currently support the broad spectrum of viable strategies given the current card pool.



So what’s the solution? Currently I think the best route is to run a hyper-linear deck. Affinity, Izzet Blitz,Hexproof - these decks can fold to the correct hate but can catch unprepared players in a situation where they simply do not have the right answers. Removal heavy decks (Mono-Black Control, Dimir Teachings) also seem like decent choices as they can invalidate a wide swath of decks in the field.

I would avoid turning to a typical aggressive deck. Falling to removal and common sideboard inclusions these decks seem to be the most vulnerable.



If I really wanted to win and was practiced I would pick up a Cloud of Faeries combo deck. The amount of hate needed to contain them is high and must be timed just right.



Right now Pauper is primed for linear decks to pounce. The skill now resides in knowing which one to pick.



The solution outside the games themselves is that the ban list needs more regular attention. I do not mean to say that more cards need to be banned. Rather I think Pauper needs regular check ins from the folks who make the decisions. Fewer Pauper games are played but the lack of powerful answers, combined with a steady influx of cards, makes it so the system can easily go out of whack.



I hope to see these first steps taken later this month.



Keep slingin’ commons-

-Alex

SpikeBoyM on Magic Online

@nerdtothecore My Facebook Page

Discuss Pauper on twitter using #mtgpauper

