Pauper: About Bans, Overreacting, The Panel and the format's future

The past week, I commented that I didn't intend to talk about Pauper until the Pauper Format Panel took the first steps, and we had the first banned and restricted announcements coming with the collaboration of the committee because it was more important to wait and see rather than insist on mentioning that there are a dozen problems that need to be addressed.

And honestly, I didn't expect these announcements to arrive so quickly, but here we are: On January 20, 2022, the following cards were banned:

And I believe we can say that while the ban on Atog was expected (but not very supported), the other two bans surprised most of the community, which technically explains the adverse and even aggressive reactions from the Internet in Discord groups, WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook and other social networks.

I really needed to take some time between the bans and my article to be able to better organize some ideas and assess, based on early results, how the format might develop from here and what we can learn from the angry wave of overreactions from the last few days.

In one of my last articles about Pauper, I commented that bans will never solve the format's real issue, the fact that it lives in a complicated relationship with the Limited of each set, specially from premium products like Modern Horizons II and, consequently, many of the cards that break the format fall as a side effect of the draft/sealed environment of other environments.

Cards like Chatterstorm and Fall from Favor should have never come out as common considering the impact they would have on Pauper, but they were necessary and important for the Limited environment of their respective sets and, for that matter, In addition, the common cards format ends up being neglected by decisions that preserve the health of the current product.

I also commented that to solve this problem, there were two options (which are not specifically opposite but complementary to each other):

1) That Wizards could provide greater transparency regarding the health of each competitive format through a committee, including Pauper.

2) The inclusion of cards in non-Limited products such as Commander Decks and others to meet the demand for efficient answers that the format needs.

Well, the Pauper Format Panel changes a lot from my perspective on bans because I am fully aware that the people who are present in it understand about Pauper, of which they all have a long history and coexistence, in addition to being public figures that have been present in the community for a long time.

This doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say or claim, but it does mean that you could admit that they have a better understanding than most of the community (and definitely better than Wizards itself, as admitted in the announcement about the committee), a portion of them tend to be in constant contact with the players and with tournaments and events, they are content creators and tend to make clear their position on the format and what are the archetypes and mechanics they consider problematic, in addition to also openly respond to questions and concerns left by the community as a whole.

Because of this, my perspective on bans has changed significantly: I believe they can solve some chronic problems established in the format, some that have existed for years without being addressed, such as the case of Tron and how, possibly, it will be the case for other archetypes and mechanics.

The Pauper Format Panel creates a perspective of what we can expect from the format, not only in bans to deal with current issues more quickly, but also to resolve some structural flaws that the format has had for a long time and that precisely creates this constant feeling of recurrent unbalance.

But obviously this comes and will come with a lot of backlash, which brings us to the next topic.

In short, many players just hated the ban decisions promoted by the Pauper Format Panel, and that's no surprise because no one likes to see their deck being jeopardized and feel like their investment of time or money has been wasted.

Or some players just didn't like the bans or found them ineffective and now accuse PFP of apocalyptic things such as ruining the format, taking out the Legacy Lite feeling or killing Pauper, but let's avoid delving into this subject because it is absolutely fruitless to debate such things.

What disappoints me, however, is how aggressively people have reacted to these changes. The entire Pauper community loves the format, some more than others, but there is something very wrong with someone if they start attacking others with threats and name-calling due to changes on their hobby.

This is not unique to Pauper, Magic, or card games.

We often see this kind of irrational and almost animalistic attitude in everything that people tend to flock to and pour an abundant passion and dedication upon them. We commonly observe attitudes like this, or worse, in physical or digital sports games by fans and, more recently, even in the sociopolitical scenario.

And I know I can't ask players not to act that way, or scold them for it. So, I can only hope that we can be better than that next time.

After all, this is just a card game... This is just a card game.

Now, as far as the facts go, it's important to emphasize that Bans are not meant to be popular, they're meant to be efficient at dealing with an existing discrepancy in the format and/or making it healthier, and it's not the first time, nor is it the last time we will see this kind of intervention occur in Pauper or in any other competitive format.

In fact, I think we'll have more controversial bans in the announcement coming out today (obviously none of them for Pauper), and that's only natural because every competitive metagame has some structural issues that eventually need to be addressed somehow, and it's impossible to please everyone when you decide to intervene directly in a competitive format.

Do you really believe that players were happy when Splinter Twin, a pillar of one of the most popular decks in the format, was banned from Modern? How many players said Pauper was dead when Blue Monday occurred, where three of its pillars, Daze, Gush and Gitaxian Probe were banned?

The thing is, as with those cards, the bans on the 20th needed to happen and specifically hit the structure of the decks they set out to hit. It's obvious that this will never happen without having some expected or unexpected side effects on other archetypes and in the format's competitive scenario.

Not only that, they also explained in detail how they decided to ban each of the cards on the announcement article, and I highly recommend that you read it to get a good idea of ​​how the Pauper Format Panel has thought through each possibility and the consequences of it.

The decisions from last Thursday were not made overnight. We've been dealing with Affinity for months now, and we've been talking about how Tron has been a troublesome deck for literally years.

Even the same can be said about how long we commented that Blue was too predominant in the format before Blue Monday, how much we currently comment that Monarch is a problematic mechanic, among other points that may or may not have some basis based on data and statistics, two elements that the PFP seems to use relatively well to make its decisions.

Regarding the bans that took place on the 20th, I believe that:

Atog

Let's be honest and admit that Atog + Fling was never a fair play, but we accepted it in the format because it was single-deck exclusive play and required a lot of deckbuilding concessions to work effectively.

Affinity's lack of consistency justified it having a combo-kill in addition to its beatdown plan because it was so inconsistent in getting its setup in the right sequencing that, many times, the Atog-Fling combo was the best way to compensate for turns where it fumbled and bumped into its own color and artifact requirements.

As I've mentioned on other occasions, for years, Affinity's space in Pauper was very close to what Dredge would be in Modern: it got good results when players stopped respecting it, while declining as the amount of Sideboard pieces against it, such as Ancient Grudge or, more often, Gorilla Shaman, would rise, making it live eternally in a Tier 1.5 or Tier 2 state as the format adapted to it.

However, Atog always had all the elements of an unfair card for Pauper: it was always the card the opponent needed to respect. When coming into play, it practically locked the game's position around it, especially during combat, and it always created the constant threat of a combo-kill that might not even exist in its controller's hand or top, but which required the opponent to play around all the time.

And these elements are unhealthy for any fair game development, no matter how hard you try to claim that Atog dies for removals or is a bad play at early game, especially when Affinity, after the release of the Dual Artifacts in Modern Horizons II, was moving closer and closer to becoming a Midrange with an aggressive opening and a combo-kill, while managing to have up to eight draw two-card effects for one mana with Thoughtcast and Deadly Dispute and still had the best removal of the format with Galvanic Blast and also maindeck access to a powerful recursion that also interacted with the rest of the deck with Blood Fountain, and returning one or two Atog to your hand in attrition matchups was better than any creature that the opponent could play against you in late-game because it opened up a dozen possibilities between threatening the combo, locking the combat, among other options.

Despite the great success of Affinity today due to the significant increase in consistency and resilience with the new duals and in the increase in its reach with Deadly Dispute and other additions, it is only natural that Atog has got banned for opening up play patterns that were never really healthy, but which was acceptable for the format for being part of a deck that was too inconsistent and with too many efficient answers against it to fully capitalize on these effects.

Now, with Affinity having a more consistent, resilient manabase and with more card advantage effects and even other ways to win the game outside of combat, it's no longer acceptable that the archetype can still count on a free win with a combo-kill.

Bonder's Ornament

I always saw Bonder's Ornament as a potentially dangerous card for Pauper due to the possibility of standardizing the game based on whether you control a piece of this artifact, to the point that we've even seen Faeries using a single Sideboard copy to play against Ornament decks.

Although it was also played in other archetypes such as Orzhov Pestilence and, mainly, Cascade decks, the main archetype that benefited from its existence in the format was, undoubtedly, Tron because the archetype met precisely the game proposal that the artifact offers: pass the turn, respond to what the opponent does, and if nothing is done or mana is left, draw a card.

This engine has always existed in Control lists since The Deck, an archetype that essentially formed the foundation for the Control decks we build today, and which used Jayemdae Tome to draw an extra card every turn, just like Tron and other archetypes does with Bonder's Ornament.

The other point is how powerful Ikoria's artifact is both in terms of manafixing and card advantage for Tron, an archetype that always needs to filter its mana through artifacts and other means to be able to cast its spells and have access to the best options available in every color.

Given all these circumstances, and how parasitic the artifact could become as a default card advantage engine, and also how much Tron benefits from the artifact more than any other deck, it makes sense that to affect Tron and also avoid making it become the default resource to all Midrange or Control decks, Bonder's Ornament is a plausible ban.

I must say, however, that I consider Monarch a mechanic as parasitic or even more parasitic as the standardization of card advantage means as Bonder's Ornament, but I will talk more about how good or bad the permanence of the mechanics in the format in a moment.

Prophetic Prism

The ban that surprised everyone was definitely Prophetic Prism, both because it was very present in the format, and because it was never considered problematic for Pauper, but it is precisely the choice of this artifact that demonstrates how they carefully considered their options.

If you were to ask anyone what it would take to weaken and reduce Tron's consistency significantly (I won't mention Affinity because Prophetic Prism is of little relevance to it), many players would say the following cards: Ghostly Flicker, Ephemerate, Bonder's Ornament, Stonehorn Dignitary, or kill the archetype for good banning Urza's Mine, Urza's Tower and Urza's Power Plant.

Essentially, the advantage that Tron has over other archetypes looking to extend the game and accumulate resources is that it can easily turn its mana abundance into value through the most efficient use of its resources, commonly done using 2-for-1 effects and abusing their interactions, such as casting Moment's Peace to stop two full turns of attack or combining Mulldrifter with Ephemerate to virtually double or even triple the options available to you.

What made this possible is that the archetype doesn't usually have much difficulty and doesn't spend resources for nothing to have access to all the colors. On the contrary, Prophetic Prism has always been essential for Tron even in its most classic versions, and the artifact was enhanced by interactions with Ghostly Flicker and Archaeomancer since, in the worst-case scenario, you could always use the mana available at your end step to blink both permanents and draw one or more cards per turn.

At the end of the day, what the PFP has decided is that if you want to fix your mana, it can't happen in a way that is a positive or equal exchange of resources: you need to spend a card from your hand for this purpose, without additional benefits.

It's worth noting that this ban was notoriously targeted at Tron, as archetypes like Affinity are less reliant on Prophetic Prism, while other archetypes that commonly played it, such as Boros/Mardu Monarch, have other efficient means of fixing its mana, and the inclusion of lands like Thriving Bluff contributes to the occasional splash, while Golden Egg serves as a good replacement for loops with Glint Hawk and Kor Skyfisher.

Tron, on the other hand, can't capitalize as well on temporary manafixing effects, so it now has to resort to options that don't offer a draw, like Darksteel Ingot, Navigator's Compass or Prismatic Lens, and that can make a huge difference during the game.

One of the reasons for the general revolt of a portion of the community was the absence of bans for archetypes like Faeries or for the Monarch mechanic, and I also feel that both have problems that will need to be addressed eventually, but it doesn't feel wrong to "wait and see" before going out and banning everything that is or seems to be an issue.

For many years, Pauper worked at the following pace: Faeries is the best deck in the format because it can deal with things in a balanced way and adapt against almost any Metagame, but it always has Monarch Decks (Boros Bully, Boros Monarch, Orzhov Pestilence) and Jund Cascade as predators.

Monarch decks are very efficient in holding Aggro because they have a proposal to use many interactions to hold the game to the point where they start to accumulate Card Advantage to a point where the opponent's resources are exhausted, but they have serious difficulties against Big Mana, such as Cascade and Tron, as well as certain Combo lists.

Tron essentially limited the space of Pauper's Midrange and Control decks while also preventing Aggro from being able to play "under", with Faeries being its main predator.

In its absence (or weakening), it is possible that aggressive archetypes can actually play under it, and that the Midranges' Card Advantage parity, coupled with an aggressive clock, can improve their matchup against this archetype, considering that it still manages to exist as a Lock-Control (which, particularly, I don't consider possible at first).

With the absence of Tron (at least in its current version), the format could enter a new axis where we have Faeries vs. Monarch vs. Aggro vs. Combo vs. Cascade and on this occasion it is possible that the Monarch mechanic is still needed to maintain resource parity between these archetypes, given that Jund Cascade can maintain more efficient resources than Boros under normal conditions, and the Monarch can help it not to be so easily overwhelmed by the advantage that threats like Annoyed Altisaur and Boarding Party offer.

My only problem in this regard is the space that Faeries occupies as the deck that best adapts to every situation, something that simply cannot be changed because this is the nature of a Turbo Xerox, as I already commented in this article.

However, if Faeries also becomes the best Monarch archetype (which isn't too hard to do because it's one of the best decks at maintaining a constant transition between proactive and reactive play), we could have a situation where there's an absolute best deck in the format because it has the most efficient stuff in every category: Counterspell is the best answer, Snuff Out is the best free spell, Cast Down is the best unconditional removal, and playing Monarch is the best way to maintain the card advantage, while cantrips ensure your draws are exponentially better than any other Monarch-based list.

But, looking at it from another angle, the great advantage that Faeries has in adapting to any Metagame also comes at a cost: It's impossible to make it adapt to all Metagames at the same time, the format doesn't have efficient enough answers to guarantee and allow this for Blue-Based Tempo.

A week when decks will be more Midrange-oriented demands different cards on the Maindeck and Sideboard, and while versions like Dimir Faeries have great universal ways of dealing with multiple situations, they can't surgically deal with all of them at the same time efficiently because the card you need to play against Cascade is very different from the stance you play against Battle Screech or in less interactive games like Elves, Moggwarts and Walls.

Another important point in this Metagame parity that needs to be considered is that Affinity will probably still be the best and most resilient Aggro, and it demands less generic answers to counter it, which will possibly cause some archetypes that cannot match it at setting the clock have a hard time keeping up in the Metagame.

The first thing to keep in mind is that it is not possible to predict the format with a week or two of Leagues and Challenges.

Like any competitive format, Pauper takes a long time to adapt to changes and establish its Metagame. It's not because Affinity won the first Challenge that it's still broken, it's not because Cycling Storm won the second that we've entered a new era of Combo decks, and it's not because Faeries didn't make any significant results that means the archetype isn't good for the current Metagame, but hare are my private conclusions about what I expect to happen in the coming weeks.

Affinity will still be a great, most likely the best, Aggro deck

As mentioned before, Affinity has the best board positioning in the format today, while still retaining all the qualities that made it a powerful competitor in the Metagame: An efficient manabase, two powerful Card Advantage effects, high-impact threats, and powerful synergies. which allows you to grind long games without much difficulty.

The question is whether the presence of Affinity will allow space for other Aggro decks to also emerge, and if the absence of its combo-kill makes it easier to deplete its resources with lists that naturally manage to establish more value in the long run, as a Monarch-based Midrange would normally be able to do.

Faeries will be a great deck, but it needs a Metagame to adapt to

The first few weeks post-ban are always wild in both Leagues and Challenges, and Faeries is an archetype that exhibits better results against a well-established format, where you can prepare your maindeck and sideboard as the Metagame changes and turns.

Monarch and Cascade will be very present

With the absence of Tron, Monarch and Cascade having the best Late-Game of the format, and with the tendency of the first weeks of the format to be geared towards aggressive lists, it is natural that archetypes geared towards removals have an advantage and that the matchups end up being defined by those who can best use their resources.

Among these, I suppose the biggest beneficiaries over the rest of the Metagame in the coming weeks will be Boros Bully (for setting a clock above Affinity, having Dust to Dust and playing well against Faeries) and Jund Cascade (for being the best Big Mana, with a very high flexibility in removals and interactions).

Non-interactive lists will appear, but will be put in check by Tempo Decks

Lists that focus solely on your game plan, such as Burn, Bogles, Cycling Storm, Walls, Familiars, and the like tend to gain advantages against different Midrange categories (For example, Bogles is excellent against Boros Monarch, but terrible against Orzhov Pestilence or Mono -Black Control), but its main Achilles heel is lists that set a clock while forcing interactive play, as Delver and Faeries tend to do.

So, when there is a more established Metagame, it is likely that Faeries will be on top (or be part of the top) of the format and put in check the main non-interactive lists that are emerging at the moment.

Jeskai Wildfire will be the format's main Control

Even though you might classify it as a Midrange, the Jeskai decks that seek to abuse the interaction between Ephemerate, Mulldrifter and Archaeomancer are the closest we have to Tron these days, and the main archetype capable of creating locks with Stonehorn Dignitary, while Cleansing Wildfire works as a great ramp.

Therefore, it is very likely that, without Tron, Jeskai Wildfire will take its place as Control who can play "over" Midrange if the match goes too long.

Probably it's not as efficient, and it's possible that Monarch vs. Jeskai are extremely balanced, but this archetype is the most likely to take the position that Tron sought to take, although we may have other versions trying to do the same, such as Azorius or Bant.

Tron as we knew it may still reappear, but it will take time.

The Fog-Tron as we knew it was very sensitive to changes.

Even though it always added cards that were beneficial to it with each release, Tron was an archetype that had a very specific core between Mnemonic Wall, Mulldrifter, Ghostly Flicker, Prophetic Prism and Mystical Teachings, and removing one of those pieces, even if it's as simple as a mana-filtering artifact, can be as impactful to it as removing its main draw engine or blink effects.

Now, there are several angles the archetype can go from (with the main one probably being to improve its manabase for the purposes of color requirements and add a manafixer or two with Prismatic Lens or similar, and perhaps increase the number of cantrips like Preordain), but it will take a long time for its enthusiasts to find the right combination to fix the damage caused by the most recent bans.

Another point that will need to be considered is, whatever the adaptation made by players, whether it will be better than playing with other well-known archetypes in the same category, as there is now an even higher price in trying to play with Urza lands.

Control decks might appear, but they need to match the value generated by Monarch

With the absence of Tron, we may have other more efficient Control archetypes emerging in the Metagame.

In particular, two decks that may come out in the medium or long term are the Serpentine Curve lists and the archetypes that tries to take advantage of Mystical Teachings, but they will need to establish ways to get more card advantage than the lists that resort to Monarch, or you'd be better off just playing with some Midrange.

There are some routes they can take for this purpose, such as betting on the interactions between Mulldrifter + Ephemerate, looking to use more means of getting 2-for-1, like Deep Analysis or Frantic Inventory, among other options, but the main point to be analyzed is how these archetypes can and intend to act against Monarch Decks and what advantages they offer to be played.

That's all for today regarding the bans, PFP, and my thoughts about the next weeks and community overreacting.

While I still consider Monarch to be a parasitic mechanic and will continue to be problematic for the format, I think our best option is to accept things as they are, rather than as we expected them to be, and evaluate the events of the next weeks without jumping to conclusions so abruptly.

Typically, the first four weeks after bans, or after the release of a highly impactful set (like Modern Horizons II) is the time when the format is still looking to adapt to changes and find a new identity for itself.

So, I always prefer to wait at least a month before making my own statements about its health, and I've broken this rule very few times in my history with Pauper, like when Chatterstorm made it more than evident from the second week of Challenges that the format was on its way to an absolute polarized state.

Therefore, my advice is to avoid overreacting and dumping opinions aimed at your own personal bias as if they were the absolute truth about what direction Pauper might take before we have statistical basis to draw such conclusions.

While we play it mostly out of passion, Magic is not specifically an emotions game, and requires a lot of analysis both in and outside the game.

I'll be reviewing the events and the format's development over the next few weeks, and I plan to bring up some deck techs and other format-related topics as interesting things occur or appear.

Until then, let's try to avoid taking decisions about a card game to such a personal level, alright?

And I strongly recommend you to read the banned and restricted announcement from last Tuesday, there is plenty of information on it.

Thanks for reading!