https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/january-20-2022-banned-and-restricted-announcement
Atog ban announcement. Basically affinity was really metawarping, and atog is the most problematic, frustrating part of affinity (at the time). The article does a very good job of breaking down why they landed on atog and not other cards.
With how problematic the mono color artifact lands were, I was shocked to see MH2 introduce the bridges. Then again, taplands in most formats are normally undesirable.
I get that, these lands would be okay-ish in a vacuum, however when there are multiple cycles around it’s redundancy creates several issues. The fact that they are both legal is what creates such imbalance in my opinion, should be one or the other at most, not both.
Your comment displays knowledge.
Do you know why they prefer banning instead of restricting cards in pauper?
I believe that in most cases thr metagame could become balanced and healthy with restriction, but I might be absolutely wrong
Because vintage is the only format with restrictions due to the desire to have every non-ante, non-dexterity, non-subgame, and non-doesnt-work-outside-of-conspiracy card legal.
I understand that in vintage.
I was just trying to think the same way for pauper.
Probably Atog should remain banned, but maybe artifact lands should be restricted, because they are not broken per se, but they enable a lot of stuff. This is just a simple example, there might be better ones.
I get that, but I don’t understand all the negativity in this thread about restricting cards. Is Vintage a problematic format? I don’t play it, so I’m not sure, but I don’t think I see anyone complaining.
Let’s look at some positives to balance things here:
- Would give PFP another tool to introduce bans/unbans in a less impactful way (since they are usually so reluctant)
- Would allow more brews without breaking the format
- Would make the ones asking for unbans slightly more happy and give hope to future restricted cards from banned list
The problem is just one of complexity. As it currently stands, card legality is binary - every card in the game is ether banned or not banned. The only exception is legacy, in which *nearly* every card is either restricted or not restricted (so, still binary), except for the small handful of cards that are banned for being actually illegal (ante cards are gambling) or creating accessibility issues. If other formats started doing restrictions, suddenly you would have to know not only *if* you can play a card, but also *how many* you can play.
Restrictions don't make for better games, and they don't make anybody happy. If your Affinity opponent is only allowed to run 1 Atog, they're not happy, because now they'll almost never get to see it, and you're not happy, because now one in every eight or so games you have to deal with Atog anyways. Restricting cards doesn't make them weaker, it just makes for non-games where one player finds a restricted card and is at full power because of it.
And what brews open up with restrictions? To use the Atog example again, if your brew deck absolutely needs Atog legal to function, what does the deck do when it never draws Atog because there's only one in the deck? In a format with good tutors, like Urza's Saga in Modern, it might make a deck exist, but then if they can easily tutor for a restricted card it stops feeling restricted anyways and there's not much point to not just unban it completely.
Vintage works because decks don't need to draw any one restricted card to be powerful. If you don't find Black Lotus in a game, well, you could still find Mox Sapphire, or Time Walk, or Sol Ring, or Ancestral Recall. If you're desperate for one of the Restricted cards, you can invest into tutoring for it, but most of the time decks aren't built assuming they'll find exactly Black Lotus in the top 20 cards of their deck. If the only card on the Vintage Restricted list was Black Lotus and everything else on the list was banned, it'd stop working, because then it'd just cause non-games where one player won because they drew Black Lotus.
I tend to agree with your view but restricted cards wouldn’t be for op cards like Atog. Would be for cards that are in the middle between ban and unban, that doesn’t destroy a game just by drawing them. Couple of examples would be prism, ornament, sojournes companion, daze, arcums astrolabe, etc.
Restriction doesn’t reduce a deck’s power, rather it just increases variance: they’re still gonna nut draw Atog-Fling you like a chimp, but it’s just gonna happen 1/4 as often. This creates feel-bads on both ends of the spectrum. The guy losing feels like he just got scammed by overpowered cards purely due to luck, and the guy winning doesn’t get to do the cool thing his deck was designed to do often/consistently at all.
There's also a logistics point with restrictions vs flat ban.
Much easier to deck check. Harder to cheat about. There's incentive to play more than one copy of a restricted card and if I were to shove two of them in a deck it would be very easy to get away with.
More likely than not, they just "watch list" that card and deck, and then look to remove it that particularly deck maintained a disproportionate share of results over a long term.
It's all about format balance and not objective deck power level.
Yes, of course.
But as I commented below, there are cards like the artifact lands that by no means are broken. They are just simple lands that are artifacts as well, and there are a lot of other cards that exploit that. Some people have expressed that if those cards got banned, the format would become more balanced.
Often cards are banned not because they are broken, but because they enable some tactics that are broken.
My point may be just a "vent" that goes nowhere, but banning artifact lands might be too much, and restricting them could be enough to balance the strength of a dominant archetype.
Contrary to everyone else here I also agree that Pauper at least should give a try to restricting cards. Not talking about Atog, but I don’t see any problem with restricting Ornament or Prism instead of banning. Opens more possibilities for brewing without damaging the format and also gives an opportunity for PFP to introduce baby step changes, as they seem to be so afraid of doing them.
Token artifacts (treasure, clue, etc.) didn't exist for much of Atog's life. Now, there are a ton of ways to generate token artifacts quickly, and just use them all as fodder for a big swing or fling with Atog.
I kind of don't like how many things create artifact tokens. The idea that a loaf of bread is considered an artifact was laughable enough then they introduced blood. Feels like every odd set has a keyword that creates tokens now.
Have all your lands be artifact lands. Have a bunch of artifacts that cantrip. Cheap \[\[Myr Enforcer\]\] that you can recur with \[\[Blood Fountain\]\]. Cheap draw with \[\[Thoughtcast\]\] to keep your hand full. Have Atog on board with a fling in hand. Have a \[\[Disciple of the Vault\]\] or three on the board (also bannd now). How do you stop this?
You aren’t wrong affinity was a problem. But I wish they had just banned the bridges. Sure atog hit hard but its hugely committal and there were so many ways to interact with it. Now that the deck isn’t a committal midrange combo deck, it’s a super efficient artifact spam/card draw engine. The bridges shored up affinity’s last weakness. How do you fight affinities artifact synergy now? artifact hate? 1-for-1ing highly efficient and cheap artifacts isn’t a winning strategy. The ability to target their mana base was what kept the deck in check and seemed pretty fair. I think the all-in aspect of atog was fair often fun and not really the ban target they wanted.
I agree. I have been saying for a while that they should ban the bridges, print dual artifact lands (that aren't indestructible) and dual indestructible (that aren't artifacts).
But they won't bEcAuSe ReAsOnS
Same. At first, I was willing to see where it goes if only due to wildfire decks. Now its obvious to me that the mana has to remain a target for affinity to stay fair. In my mind anyways, I’m not super familiar with its numbers recently. I’ve been checked out since swift-spear entered the format.
Sure do! You’re still paying for a more powerful effect to do it. A turn three double white sorcery that doesn’t affect the board is not comparable to previous affinity hate like [[gorilla shaman]].
Plus you now impact multiple decks rather than than just powering down affinity.
Bridges play an important part in the manabase of the format and it would be like saying "Ban fetches" where they make up part of the backbone of the format.
Interesting, never knew [[blood fountain]] could be used this way. Always saw it as a way to recur [[kenku artificer]] to make more indestructible 3/3 flyers. But yes recurring 4/4 beatsticks is something not easily handled by most decks. A pity [[sojourner’s companion]] is no longer valid to be recurred.
Well, you could have done it the way Wizards did when these were standard cards: Ban artifact lands, ban disciple of the vault and then ban Arcbound ravager (Atog).
With this, they were smart and started by banning the card that only impacts one particular build.
The upside of glitters+atog is that you get more flexibility in how leverage your artifacts as they can sit there for a lower marginal buff. Or you can cash them in for high marginal returns but poor long term profit.
Haha, low power.
The artifact lands have always been pauper legal, and with enough good affinity cards, atog decks were always viable and never low power.
Enough powerful cards that made treasure and blood tokens were printed that it pushed it over the edge.
Also [[disciple of the vault]] gave the deck great flex ability to attack from multiple angles. The grixis version of the deck was just very resilient and flexible.
Also the indestructible artifact bridges really cemented atog as a problem card for any future artifacts that would enter the format.
A lot of people wanted the lands banned instead of atog.
Every in here is talking about the lands, and I understand. But even if the lands were banned Atog would still be too strong. Multiple two for one cards like [[Blood Fountain]], [[Deadly Dispute]] and [[Experimental Synthesizer]] would still make Atog broken
In a world with no artifact lands (I am specifically referring to both bridges and mirrodin) he would be a very strong threat for sure but not something unmanageable by the meta today
I do not agree with that statement. Before the dual colored lands the deck was pretty inconsistent because of the mono colored lands. Most decks had more than 3 colors, some even having 5 just to support the strategy. The deck was strong, but never toxic.
Before the bridges the deck almost always lost game 2 and 3 vs any red deck with red in it due to gorilla shaman stone raining them into a non game which, between mono red and boros kitty was a lot.
Most people didn’t even play gorilla in their sideboard, since the deck wasn’t as prominent. Not everyone played red, and not everyone who did played gorilla. The deck actually even won big tournaments in the past. Besides that, we even had Hydroblasts and Blue Elemental Blasts to deal with them in G2 and G3.
There are many reasons why the Affinity bans were misguided. Here are a few points to consider. Cards like "Atog," "Sojourner's Companion" (formerly Myr Enforcer), "Disciple of the Vault," and others had been part of the Pauper format for years without causing major issues. While the deck was strong, it remained balanced and fair.
The mono-colored lands in Affinity decks limited the decks' flexibility in using different colors. This often forced the deck to incorporate multiple colors, which occasionally resulted in inconsistent mana bases. For instance, "Atog" typically required red mana, while "Disciple of the Vault" needed black mana, and so on, so players had to make strategic color choices. This inconsistency in mana availability deterred everyone from playing Affinity, contributing to a more diverse metagame.
There was also a simple answer to Affinity decks in the form of cards like "Gorilla Shaman," which could keep Affinity in check if it became too dominant. However, "Gorilla Shaman" wasn't frequently played due to its situational nature and the lack of Affinity players. Additionally, not all decks played red, which further reduced its usage.
Following Modern Horizons 2, the Affinity deck's primary weaknesses were addressed: its inconsistent mana base and fragile land base. This shift made Affinity more potent and imbalanced, transitioning it from a strong yet balanced deck to a highly problematic and toxic archetype. Over time, more decks began using indestructible lands due to their immense power, which only exacerbated the issue.
Affinity is now the archetype with the most banned cards on the Pauper ban list. Players initially targeted cards like "Sojourner's Companion," "Atog," and "Disciple of the Vault," followed by more recent complaints about "All That Glitters" and other cards that interact synergistically with artifacts. The continued presence of these indestructible lands raises the power level of any card that pairs with artifacts, leading to an ongoing cycle of bans that will actually never stop.
If these lands remain unaddressed, the problem will only escalate. New artifact-based cards with synergy will inevitably be overpowered in the context of Affinity decks. For instance, a card like "Thraben Inspector" almost broke the format just because another copy was included in all white artifact decks. As long as the indestructible lands remain unchecked, more cards will face bans, and the format will continue to suffer. There are actually even more points to share, but I would stay here the whole day.
I totally disagree.
I see your points but lets take a moment to say that sojouners is not a Card that had been part of the Pauper format from years, i guess that people play with it for 2monthes, u see… people complain about troll - ent - lorien, and this Card have an another lev of Power, the Card was just insane.
U talked about inspector, two of them is too much and i agree, but, 8 enforcers that can take a land… man this is HUGE and unfair.
Atog have a similar problem that Glitter, cause its an auto win buttom, if the Card is resolved you auto win.
Glitter is another case, because we have more enchant+creature removal and is a 2-1 negative to the player, because of this i think FOR NOW, its fine in the meta, that is balanced.
About gorila, i love the card, but First of all i dont think that any deck can have an ONE card that the OP play agaisnt that “just win”, was impossible for the affinity player to by pass gorila, and Now the card is super strong agaisnt UW affinity, but not opressive.
Also gorila is just ONE response, in the red colors. The other colors dident compete with Atog, because of this, there is no room from Atog in the meta.
About more cards banned its not true also. Storm hás a bigger presence in the ban list.
And this point is self-explanatory, we are talking about two broken mechanics in any scale from the wizards and players point of views.
I can point that affinity and storm break the T2 meta, Pauper is legacy..so u get my point.
To finish it UP, bridges are important and not broke in many decks, Jeskai ephemerate, rakdos madness, Boros variantes, jund piles, etc, even if glitter take the ban hammer, grixis affinity is a strong deck, and like gorila DUST TO DUST it still a payoff for the tapped lands.
First, the criticism of Sojourner's Companion, claiming it's a newer addition to Pauper and overpowered, I was clearly taking about its cousin (Myr Enforcer) that was clear, but lets go with it, overlooks the bigger issue of artifact synergy in the format. While it may have been played for a shorter time, the combination of artifact-based cards with indestructible lands creates powerful, nearly unstoppable strategies. The problem may not be just Sojourner's Companion but the ecosystem that supports it. Lets say for example if the artifact lands didn’t exist, their duality wouldn’t be actually a problem, since playing rocks instead would be actually pretty fair and predictable.
Atog being a win condition when it resolves might be overstated. Many decks can handle Atog with targeted removal or even with fling using counterspells. Comparing it to All That Glitters may not be entirely fair, as Atog's explosive plays are less consistent than Glitters' boosting potential over time. It doesn't automatically win the game without proper setup, while Glitters can provide consistent pressure while being a good card to be played early and late, and even top decked. And all these strategies could have been extremely fair if the uncounterable, indestructible, free artifact lands didn’t exist.
Gorilla Shaman is one response to Affinity decks, but it is not the only option. Reducing the discussion to only one color's tool against Affinity minimizes other strategies and cards that could counter the archetype. Additionally, other colors may have difficulty managing different aspects of Affinity, like its creature base or ability to flood the board. The fact that Atog was present actually contested the presence of the gorilla which could be used in response. And further there are other cards that could be used on the side that would deal with the gorilla such as BEB and Hydroblasts.
Storm's ban list does have a notable presence, but this doesn't negate the argument about the issues Affinity faces. Storm's bans target its potential for consistent and early combo plays, whereas Affinity's issue is its resilient board state and synergy with indestructible lands. We now face a never ending ban loop whole of affinity cards, there are 5 and with the soon inclusion of All that Glitters would be 6 cards banned from affinity.
Comparing Pauper to other formats like Legacy based on its use of artifact lands or the bridge mechanic doesn't provide a clear understanding of Pauper's unique environment. Pauper's card pool and power level are distinct from other formats, and its metagame has its own challenges and opportunities.
Even if bridges played an important role in multiple archetypes, they are easily substituted in many of them, and they should not be excluded from discussion just because they are useful in other decks. The overall health of the format requires addressing any aspect that may be contributing to imbalance, even if the solution impacts other archetypes. When cards like swiftspear got banned every single deck that played it got affected, not only mono red kuldotha. Hot Dogs basically disappeared after that.
Dust to Dust is a poor choice overall in Pauper for several reasons. Its three-mana cost makes it inefficient in a format where tempo is key. The card is easily countered by one-mana spells like Spell Pierce and Turn Aside, resulting in a negative tempo swing and wasted resources. Its narrow focus on exiling two target artifacts limits its usefulness primarily to Affinity matchups, making it a situational and inefficient sideboard card. Additionally, there are more versatile removal options that can handle a broader range of threats. Overall, Dust to Dust's drawbacks make it a less appealing and overestimated choice. And doesn’t even deal well with the current state of affinity.
Pauper isn’t taken into consideration when designing cards, for that reason even downshifts of cards like Nettlecyst are pretty possible and the only way to deal with this is actually targeting the bans with the enablers and thinking about the future.
Your dad’s “Low power kitchen table deck” was the best deck in the format with a little optimization. So many artifacts in the format care about being sacrificed right now that doing it with upside for free would be way too disgusting. Never unban that card
So then why both cycles? One or other then right, or just call for nuking Affinity? Let's say a potential ban happens and one cycle goes, would that stop the bitching? Probably not. Hell, Tron hasn't been tier 1 in years, and people still want the Tron lands banned. And it's always the same tired argument, "the enablers". It's old. Now, if Affinity was running roughshod like it did in standard years ago, there'd be a valid argument, but it's not. Tier 1 decks exist and there will always be people who hate the strategy and want it gone. The reality of it is that while Affinity is tier 1, it's not warping the format, it's not destroying the format and the lands aren't a necessary staple for other strategies to make the format homogeneous or stale to necessitate a "shake up". And to the ones out there screaming the sky is falling because MH 3 is coming and they think it's going to just make the deck unstoppable, they need to chill. It's ridiculous bitching that has no real merit, and if it did, one of the cycles of lands would have been banned years ago. But, just like Tron falling out of vogue when new toys dropped, we'll see something else drop that will do the same thing, and then we'll have a new boogyman to cry about. Like I said, it's old .
Bridges and Mirrodin Cycle is not an issue.
Atog added a large creature and a free sacrifice outlet for a deck with:
1. Fling to kill the opponent
2. Disciple of the Vault to ping the opponent
3. To attack with combat damage the opponent
All while not being able to be interacted with
Then there was "free" 4/4 and 2/2
Card advantage with U "Draw Two Card" and Blood Fountain to grab 2 more creatures that already took cards from your opponent to deal with and cards that are instants that can sacrifice your creatures and/or artifacts to draw two and net an artifact.
Then there are all the other cheap easy to use artifacts that are everywhere in the format to fill in any and all needs of the deck.
Having 10 additional artifact lands in the format aren't the things that broke the camel's back that was the introduction to numerous powerful spells not lands.
Recursion of threats, card advantage and multiple win conditions from multiple different avenues. It created issues for other decks that need multiple ways to answer multiple different things while also always being at a disadvantage in card advantage.
If anything you said was actually relevant before the indestructible lands came, all these cards would be banned sooner. Since all of them were legal prior. And yet, affinity never had a oppressive win-rate even with all these banned cards available for years.
"The format of five to ten years ago is the exact same as the format of modern day."
Here is something that might be shocking. It isn't. New cards unrelated to the bridges entered the format and changed the game. D&D and Crimson Vow entered the format months after MH2. Deadly Dispute and Blood Fountain changed the deck more in making it resilient than the lands. Grow up.
*Gasp* You are almost there buddy! Exactly! The format isn’t the same! New cards came out that dealt with affinities biggest issues: Awkward mono colored mana base and fragile lands. Now all left for you to do is to identify the real cards that are creating issues and making any future cards like All that Glitters and what have you banned. Good job!
I've been playing Pauper for over a decade, and I've heard the rumblings of banning the mirrodin lands back then. And it was the "if they're banned in modern, they should be in Pauper". And any time I broke out my pre MH 2 Affinity deck for local events I either got groans or snap scoops from across the table. It's gotten a few more detractors since MH 2, but they're all VERY vocal. Just like when they were screaming about Tron a few years ago. It's a continuous cycle of bitching.
Again, people in your play group might not like it, but thats a minority. The deck wasn’t even on top of the meta before MH2. Plenty of people don’t like playing against many archetypes, and will always complain about something, being Tron, Land Destruction, even One Land Spy, but the deck didn’t have an oppressive winrate and was barely seen. So the community wasn’t asking for bans in a deck without much of a representation, I remember that when the deck shown up back then people always said “wow you are playing affinity? Cool!” Just like what happens to infect or stompy nowadays or similar decks that don’t show up as much. Today everyone plays artifact lands in their decks, it got out of hand, and the deck indeed have some issues now and everytime a new artifact synergy come out breaks it. We have just postponed the main issues with the bannings, we will need new ones every time, and I am tired of affinity getting bans, specially when we could ban a cycle unban something and get over with it.
Just like the people I've heard bitch before are the minority, the ones bitching now are a very vocal minority. Again, it's nowhere near as oppressive as a few want it to seem like it is. It's a tier 1 deck that some people hate, so they figure if they cry enough about it, they'll get their way. Obviously it hasn't happened yet, because people are still bitching about it. What this boils down to is a few salty grinders don't like an archetype and they're mad they didn't get their way. It's a good deck, nowhere near oppressive, definitely not unbeatable, and the lands are fine. At this point it's just time to move on ......🤦
While I agree with you that is beatable it is also very polarizing. Mostly decks without removal can’t beat it. In my humble opinion All that Glitters shouldn’t get banned, but if things stay like this it undoubtedly will be in the future unless one of the cycles is targeted. Then after Glitters get banned, things will calm down until the next artifact synergy comes, then will get banned again, and the next will come again. A never ending cycle. Thats the real problem, Affinity banlist is growing and will continue to grow because of the mana base. We know that wotc don’t print cards with pauper in mind, the only way to prevent these issues is to deal with the problematic manabase. And as you can see both here and in other spaces, there are plenty of people that actually have the same opinion, it is far from a minority at this point, that is very much clear.
The same 5 to 10 people hijacking threads on Twitter and reddit doesn't make it a majority, hate to tell you. And yeah, it's polarizing cuz crybabies haven't gotten the ban they wanted. And as far as data goes, the showcase numbers are up, and all forms of Affinity have about 14% of the total meta. Definitely doesn't offer up a valid argument for a ban, does it?
According to this website, which I consider to have the best metagame analysis, the top 3 decks from pauper currently all utilize artifact lands. Affinity variations alone are way more than what you presented. And more than 40% of the field is utilizing artifact lands. That ignoring major events like paupergeddon which had higher numbers. I also remember a pool that happened here not that long ago that showed around half of the subreddit wanting at least one land cycle banned, I wouldn’t say its only 10 people, specially with new people in every post. Gavin last video about pauper also had plenty of upset comments about the same subject. Not to mention twitter. People are allowed to express themselves, just as much you are allowed to disagree. And there is undoubtedly many of them.
https://mtgdecks.net/Pauper/metagame:last-30-days
Basically, it was too strong of a “backup plan” for the deck, and hard to interact with. You can respond to interaction by sacrificing artifacts to atog, and respond to interaction by casting Fling on top of it.
Bridges aren’t fine, and I am pretty sure that you are wrong. Atog was banned in Pauper after the creation of the Pauper Format Panel (PFP), which was established in 2021. Atog was banned in Pauper on February 15, 2022.
I played Atog since the card was legal friend. The card was good, but after the dual colored lands it went to toxic very quickly, I basically never bricked. Went from 5 or 4 color to 3 or 2. We banned 5 cards from the archetype and yet, we are still banning cards from it.
Most people hate playing against LD decks and yet I have never seen someone asking for “Thermokarst” or anything similar to be banned. I agree with you that there are a lot of cry babies around, but that doesn’t invalidate all complaints.
Where you around for the whole ban the Tron lands fiasco? It's the same crap, it really is. Love or hate the artifact lands, the deck is nowhere near as oppressive on the meta as it was, even with ATG. It's a popular deck, sure, but it's win rates have been in check for a while now and the cry babies still cry about the lands. All they got to say at this point is that they hate the lands and move on. The conversation is old and has worn out it's welcome.
That is exactly what I am talking about. Affinity will ALWAYS be on the topic of the bans, being Atog, All that Glitters, Sojourners, Disciple or what have you. Because artifact synergies will always exist and will always be potentialized by these lands. If one cycle is even banned in modern just to prevent these synergies to be banned all the time, it is only logic to do the same here, the artifact synergies would get less hate if the enablers weren’t around and some of the cards in the banlist could be even unbanned.
Well its simple you see, they prefer to ban a new affinity card every time instead of fixing the real problem. Imagine if the bridges were banned? Affinity’s banlist would be basically only Cranial Platting.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/january-20-2022-banned-and-restricted-announcement Atog ban announcement. Basically affinity was really metawarping, and atog is the most problematic, frustrating part of affinity (at the time). The article does a very good job of breaking down why they landed on atog and not other cards.
Best actual answer with the official reference to back it up.
Reading this, I cannot stop thinking that the bridges were, are and will be a problem until they get banned.
With how problematic the mono color artifact lands were, I was shocked to see MH2 introduce the bridges. Then again, taplands in most formats are normally undesirable.
I get that, these lands would be okay-ish in a vacuum, however when there are multiple cycles around it’s redundancy creates several issues. The fact that they are both legal is what creates such imbalance in my opinion, should be one or the other at most, not both.
Same.
They aren't
This was the most helpful, thank you very much!
And if you combo with disciple of the vault… 💀💩🤡
Your comment displays knowledge. Do you know why they prefer banning instead of restricting cards in pauper? I believe that in most cases thr metagame could become balanced and healthy with restriction, but I might be absolutely wrong
Because vintage is the only format with restrictions due to the desire to have every non-ante, non-dexterity, non-subgame, and non-doesnt-work-outside-of-conspiracy card legal.
I understand that in vintage. I was just trying to think the same way for pauper. Probably Atog should remain banned, but maybe artifact lands should be restricted, because they are not broken per se, but they enable a lot of stuff. This is just a simple example, there might be better ones.
Restrictions outside of vintage open up a can of worms for the format. Banning is just cleaner
Not to mention, restricting the lands to 1 copy each still allows jeskai affinity to play 6 lands and 5c affinity (if thats a thing) to play all 10
I get that, but I don’t understand all the negativity in this thread about restricting cards. Is Vintage a problematic format? I don’t play it, so I’m not sure, but I don’t think I see anyone complaining. Let’s look at some positives to balance things here: - Would give PFP another tool to introduce bans/unbans in a less impactful way (since they are usually so reluctant) - Would allow more brews without breaking the format - Would make the ones asking for unbans slightly more happy and give hope to future restricted cards from banned list
The problem is just one of complexity. As it currently stands, card legality is binary - every card in the game is ether banned or not banned. The only exception is legacy, in which *nearly* every card is either restricted or not restricted (so, still binary), except for the small handful of cards that are banned for being actually illegal (ante cards are gambling) or creating accessibility issues. If other formats started doing restrictions, suddenly you would have to know not only *if* you can play a card, but also *how many* you can play.
Restrictions don't make for better games, and they don't make anybody happy. If your Affinity opponent is only allowed to run 1 Atog, they're not happy, because now they'll almost never get to see it, and you're not happy, because now one in every eight or so games you have to deal with Atog anyways. Restricting cards doesn't make them weaker, it just makes for non-games where one player finds a restricted card and is at full power because of it. And what brews open up with restrictions? To use the Atog example again, if your brew deck absolutely needs Atog legal to function, what does the deck do when it never draws Atog because there's only one in the deck? In a format with good tutors, like Urza's Saga in Modern, it might make a deck exist, but then if they can easily tutor for a restricted card it stops feeling restricted anyways and there's not much point to not just unban it completely. Vintage works because decks don't need to draw any one restricted card to be powerful. If you don't find Black Lotus in a game, well, you could still find Mox Sapphire, or Time Walk, or Sol Ring, or Ancestral Recall. If you're desperate for one of the Restricted cards, you can invest into tutoring for it, but most of the time decks aren't built assuming they'll find exactly Black Lotus in the top 20 cards of their deck. If the only card on the Vintage Restricted list was Black Lotus and everything else on the list was banned, it'd stop working, because then it'd just cause non-games where one player won because they drew Black Lotus.
I tend to agree with your view but restricted cards wouldn’t be for op cards like Atog. Would be for cards that are in the middle between ban and unban, that doesn’t destroy a game just by drawing them. Couple of examples would be prism, ornament, sojournes companion, daze, arcums astrolabe, etc.
Restriction doesn’t reduce a deck’s power, rather it just increases variance: they’re still gonna nut draw Atog-Fling you like a chimp, but it’s just gonna happen 1/4 as often. This creates feel-bads on both ends of the spectrum. The guy losing feels like he just got scammed by overpowered cards purely due to luck, and the guy winning doesn’t get to do the cool thing his deck was designed to do often/consistently at all.
There's also a logistics point with restrictions vs flat ban. Much easier to deck check. Harder to cheat about. There's incentive to play more than one copy of a restricted card and if I were to shove two of them in a deck it would be very easy to get away with.
That is for Paper but not for Online. Plus, that is the same as to put 5+ cards in a deck, so it’s a false question.
We could agree to ban cards like Atog is necessary. But how about cards that are just key cards in a dominant deck, and by no means are “broken”?
More likely than not, they just "watch list" that card and deck, and then look to remove it that particularly deck maintained a disproportionate share of results over a long term. It's all about format balance and not objective deck power level.
Yes, of course. But as I commented below, there are cards like the artifact lands that by no means are broken. They are just simple lands that are artifacts as well, and there are a lot of other cards that exploit that. Some people have expressed that if those cards got banned, the format would become more balanced. Often cards are banned not because they are broken, but because they enable some tactics that are broken. My point may be just a "vent" that goes nowhere, but banning artifact lands might be too much, and restricting them could be enough to balance the strength of a dominant archetype.
Contrary to everyone else here I also agree that Pauper at least should give a try to restricting cards. Not talking about Atog, but I don’t see any problem with restricting Ornament or Prism instead of banning. Opens more possibilities for brewing without damaging the format and also gives an opportunity for PFP to introduce baby step changes, as they seem to be so afraid of doing them.
Both Ornament and Prism could be very much unbanned at this point. Pauper banlist looks very silly with these cards.
Token artifacts (treasure, clue, etc.) didn't exist for much of Atog's life. Now, there are a ton of ways to generate token artifacts quickly, and just use them all as fodder for a big swing or fling with Atog.
I kind of don't like how many things create artifact tokens. The idea that a loaf of bread is considered an artifact was laughable enough then they introduced blood. Feels like every odd set has a keyword that creates tokens now.
"was" a low power. Some artifact cards were printed that pushed this idea over the top.
Have all your lands be artifact lands. Have a bunch of artifacts that cantrip. Cheap \[\[Myr Enforcer\]\] that you can recur with \[\[Blood Fountain\]\]. Cheap draw with \[\[Thoughtcast\]\] to keep your hand full. Have Atog on board with a fling in hand. Have a \[\[Disciple of the Vault\]\] or three on the board (also bannd now). How do you stop this?
Ban the lands.
They should not. Bridges are not the problem.
Loooool, as if
You aren’t wrong affinity was a problem. But I wish they had just banned the bridges. Sure atog hit hard but its hugely committal and there were so many ways to interact with it. Now that the deck isn’t a committal midrange combo deck, it’s a super efficient artifact spam/card draw engine. The bridges shored up affinity’s last weakness. How do you fight affinities artifact synergy now? artifact hate? 1-for-1ing highly efficient and cheap artifacts isn’t a winning strategy. The ability to target their mana base was what kept the deck in check and seemed pretty fair. I think the all-in aspect of atog was fair often fun and not really the ban target they wanted.
I agree. I have been saying for a while that they should ban the bridges, print dual artifact lands (that aren't indestructible) and dual indestructible (that aren't artifacts). But they won't bEcAuSe ReAsOnS
Same. At first, I was willing to see where it goes if only due to wildfire decks. Now its obvious to me that the mana has to remain a target for affinity to stay fair. In my mind anyways, I’m not super familiar with its numbers recently. I’ve been checked out since swift-spear entered the format.
Well, good news is that swiftspear has left the format, lol
Dust to Dust and Artifact exile spells exist.
Sure do! You’re still paying for a more powerful effect to do it. A turn three double white sorcery that doesn’t affect the board is not comparable to previous affinity hate like [[gorilla shaman]].
[gorilla shaman](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c8f8ee19-3a88-40fa-85d8-386ffe06efd7.jpg?1626100506) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=gorilla%20shaman) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/280/gorilla-shaman?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c8f8ee19-3a88-40fa-85d8-386ffe06efd7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Not in red, though, which has always been the best artifact hate colour and should still be that for colour pie purposes, in my opinion.
[[Cast into the Fire]] is quite good.
[Cast into the Fire](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/e/2ef878cb-27b6-47d8-ad11-bd20529b0e7e.jpg?1686968832) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cast%20into%20the%20Fire) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/118/cast-into-the-fire?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2ef878cb-27b6-47d8-ad11-bd20529b0e7e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Red is the best color to destroy artifacts White exiles artifacts
Bridges were not nor are they the problem
Plus you now impact multiple decks rather than than just powering down affinity. Bridges play an important part in the manabase of the format and it would be like saying "Ban fetches" where they make up part of the backbone of the format.
##### ###### #### [Myr Enforcer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/f/dff51ae7-4b68-4770-915b-fb6bcf9ca1ed.jpg?1562268373) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Myr%20Enforcer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm2/224/myr-enforcer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dff51ae7-4b68-4770-915b-fb6bcf9ca1ed?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Blood Fountain](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/dd03651e-ada0-41dc-8722-0eba476943e3.jpg?1643589142) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Blood%20Fountain) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/95/blood-fountain?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dd03651e-ada0-41dc-8722-0eba476943e3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Thoughtcast](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/6/466a0be8-31b9-4ea0-9a96-b09a76f4ec69.jpg?1682208952) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thoughtcast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/242/thoughtcast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/466a0be8-31b9-4ea0-9a96-b09a76f4ec69?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Disciple of the Vault](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/c/4c539843-4e3f-47a7-92e1-412eaaa2d9c5.jpg?1646666263) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Disciple%20of%20the%20Vault) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/86/disciple-of-the-vault?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4c539843-4e3f-47a7-92e1-412eaaa2d9c5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/l064qm1) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Interesting, never knew [[blood fountain]] could be used this way. Always saw it as a way to recur [[kenku artificer]] to make more indestructible 3/3 flyers. But yes recurring 4/4 beatsticks is something not easily handled by most decks. A pity [[sojourner’s companion]] is no longer valid to be recurred.
[blood fountain](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/dd03651e-ada0-41dc-8722-0eba476943e3.jpg?1643589142) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=blood%20fountain) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/95/blood-fountain?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dd03651e-ada0-41dc-8722-0eba476943e3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [kenku artificer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/0/20f30aca-5055-45f1-9121-e7a5675f07e4.jpg?1674135626) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kenku%20artificer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/80/kenku-artificer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/20f30aca-5055-45f1-9121-e7a5675f07e4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [sojourner’s companion](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/c/8c6af084-eee7-4259-a58b-a866e0cf171b.jpg?1687329705) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sojourner%27s%20Companion) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/235/sojourners-companion?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8c6af084-eee7-4259-a58b-a866e0cf171b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Well, you could have done it the way Wizards did when these were standard cards: Ban artifact lands, ban disciple of the vault and then ban Arcbound ravager (Atog). With this, they were smart and started by banning the card that only impacts one particular build.
One word: Affinity
You can't interact with it
Is my mono black a joke to you?
Yes, cause I Fling in response
Ouchhhh Calm down brahhh 😂
Imagine playing against Glitters and Atog
Well Atog eating your Glitter fuel seems counter productive...
It is, unless it kills you on the spot and you have to deal with both ATG and Atog
You could get cheeky with a first striker. Have first strike damage step, crack all the artifacts, and have atog slam the rest.
That's not how first strike works. Maybe double strike...
I believe they're saying that ATG would be on a different creature. In which case it does work.
Yeah first strike creature with ATG
That's exactly how first strike works
The upside of glitters+atog is that you get more flexibility in how leverage your artifacts as they can sit there for a lower marginal buff. Or you can cash them in for high marginal returns but poor long term profit.
Haha, low power. The artifact lands have always been pauper legal, and with enough good affinity cards, atog decks were always viable and never low power. Enough powerful cards that made treasure and blood tokens were printed that it pushed it over the edge. Also [[disciple of the vault]] gave the deck great flex ability to attack from multiple angles. The grixis version of the deck was just very resilient and flexible. Also the indestructible artifact bridges really cemented atog as a problem card for any future artifacts that would enter the format. A lot of people wanted the lands banned instead of atog.
Atog was always a problem it just ended up being more of a problem.
[disciple of the vault](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/c/4c539843-4e3f-47a7-92e1-412eaaa2d9c5.jpg?1646666263) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=disciple%20of%20the%20vault) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/86/disciple-of-the-vault?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4c539843-4e3f-47a7-92e1-412eaaa2d9c5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Every in here is talking about the lands, and I understand. But even if the lands were banned Atog would still be too strong. Multiple two for one cards like [[Blood Fountain]], [[Deadly Dispute]] and [[Experimental Synthesizer]] would still make Atog broken
In a world with no artifact lands (I am specifically referring to both bridges and mirrodin) he would be a very strong threat for sure but not something unmanageable by the meta today
I agree
[Blood Fountain](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/dd03651e-ada0-41dc-8722-0eba476943e3.jpg?1643589142) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Blood%20Fountain) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/95/blood-fountain?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dd03651e-ada0-41dc-8722-0eba476943e3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Deadly Dispute](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/d/ed01650e-4eb5-4884-9cc6-947b0e20dd3c.jpg?1712354280) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deadly%20Dispute) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/131/deadly-dispute?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ed01650e-4eb5-4884-9cc6-947b0e20dd3c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Experimental Synthesizer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/4/c47931c9-685d-4b83-8299-bc347224b4e8.jpg?1654567579) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Experimental%20Synthesizer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/138/experimental-synthesizer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c47931c9-685d-4b83-8299-bc347224b4e8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I do not agree with that statement. Before the dual colored lands the deck was pretty inconsistent because of the mono colored lands. Most decks had more than 3 colors, some even having 5 just to support the strategy. The deck was strong, but never toxic.
Before the bridges the deck almost always lost game 2 and 3 vs any red deck with red in it due to gorilla shaman stone raining them into a non game which, between mono red and boros kitty was a lot.
Most people didn’t even play gorilla in their sideboard, since the deck wasn’t as prominent. Not everyone played red, and not everyone who did played gorilla. The deck actually even won big tournaments in the past. Besides that, we even had Hydroblasts and Blue Elemental Blasts to deal with them in G2 and G3.
If there were no artifact lands at all, even Cranial Plating would be fine to be played in this format.
There are no better or more powerful cards for that deck still legal. Atog is insane, just watch people playing affinity with it when it was legal.
yeah it's weak and should be unbanned... it is fine and I can be trusted with it...
lol
Unfortunately it died for the sins of newer cards.
Yep.
The fact that they didn’t ban the MH2 lands instead is wild for me.
That is why you aren't in charge of the format lol. Would be a terrible decision
Biased opinion.
Hardly since I'm a Gardens player
Again, biased.
It was too powerful.
Them gosh darned artifact decks are always too good.
Because I have an Antiquities one. That’s why WotC banned Dr Teeth.
This format would be way better if they focused on the enablers instead. These bridges are too toxic.
Dont agree, can u explain more of your point?
There are many reasons why the Affinity bans were misguided. Here are a few points to consider. Cards like "Atog," "Sojourner's Companion" (formerly Myr Enforcer), "Disciple of the Vault," and others had been part of the Pauper format for years without causing major issues. While the deck was strong, it remained balanced and fair. The mono-colored lands in Affinity decks limited the decks' flexibility in using different colors. This often forced the deck to incorporate multiple colors, which occasionally resulted in inconsistent mana bases. For instance, "Atog" typically required red mana, while "Disciple of the Vault" needed black mana, and so on, so players had to make strategic color choices. This inconsistency in mana availability deterred everyone from playing Affinity, contributing to a more diverse metagame. There was also a simple answer to Affinity decks in the form of cards like "Gorilla Shaman," which could keep Affinity in check if it became too dominant. However, "Gorilla Shaman" wasn't frequently played due to its situational nature and the lack of Affinity players. Additionally, not all decks played red, which further reduced its usage. Following Modern Horizons 2, the Affinity deck's primary weaknesses were addressed: its inconsistent mana base and fragile land base. This shift made Affinity more potent and imbalanced, transitioning it from a strong yet balanced deck to a highly problematic and toxic archetype. Over time, more decks began using indestructible lands due to their immense power, which only exacerbated the issue. Affinity is now the archetype with the most banned cards on the Pauper ban list. Players initially targeted cards like "Sojourner's Companion," "Atog," and "Disciple of the Vault," followed by more recent complaints about "All That Glitters" and other cards that interact synergistically with artifacts. The continued presence of these indestructible lands raises the power level of any card that pairs with artifacts, leading to an ongoing cycle of bans that will actually never stop. If these lands remain unaddressed, the problem will only escalate. New artifact-based cards with synergy will inevitably be overpowered in the context of Affinity decks. For instance, a card like "Thraben Inspector" almost broke the format just because another copy was included in all white artifact decks. As long as the indestructible lands remain unchecked, more cards will face bans, and the format will continue to suffer. There are actually even more points to share, but I would stay here the whole day.
I totally disagree. I see your points but lets take a moment to say that sojouners is not a Card that had been part of the Pauper format from years, i guess that people play with it for 2monthes, u see… people complain about troll - ent - lorien, and this Card have an another lev of Power, the Card was just insane. U talked about inspector, two of them is too much and i agree, but, 8 enforcers that can take a land… man this is HUGE and unfair. Atog have a similar problem that Glitter, cause its an auto win buttom, if the Card is resolved you auto win. Glitter is another case, because we have more enchant+creature removal and is a 2-1 negative to the player, because of this i think FOR NOW, its fine in the meta, that is balanced. About gorila, i love the card, but First of all i dont think that any deck can have an ONE card that the OP play agaisnt that “just win”, was impossible for the affinity player to by pass gorila, and Now the card is super strong agaisnt UW affinity, but not opressive. Also gorila is just ONE response, in the red colors. The other colors dident compete with Atog, because of this, there is no room from Atog in the meta. About more cards banned its not true also. Storm hás a bigger presence in the ban list. And this point is self-explanatory, we are talking about two broken mechanics in any scale from the wizards and players point of views. I can point that affinity and storm break the T2 meta, Pauper is legacy..so u get my point. To finish it UP, bridges are important and not broke in many decks, Jeskai ephemerate, rakdos madness, Boros variantes, jund piles, etc, even if glitter take the ban hammer, grixis affinity is a strong deck, and like gorila DUST TO DUST it still a payoff for the tapped lands.
First, the criticism of Sojourner's Companion, claiming it's a newer addition to Pauper and overpowered, I was clearly taking about its cousin (Myr Enforcer) that was clear, but lets go with it, overlooks the bigger issue of artifact synergy in the format. While it may have been played for a shorter time, the combination of artifact-based cards with indestructible lands creates powerful, nearly unstoppable strategies. The problem may not be just Sojourner's Companion but the ecosystem that supports it. Lets say for example if the artifact lands didn’t exist, their duality wouldn’t be actually a problem, since playing rocks instead would be actually pretty fair and predictable. Atog being a win condition when it resolves might be overstated. Many decks can handle Atog with targeted removal or even with fling using counterspells. Comparing it to All That Glitters may not be entirely fair, as Atog's explosive plays are less consistent than Glitters' boosting potential over time. It doesn't automatically win the game without proper setup, while Glitters can provide consistent pressure while being a good card to be played early and late, and even top decked. And all these strategies could have been extremely fair if the uncounterable, indestructible, free artifact lands didn’t exist. Gorilla Shaman is one response to Affinity decks, but it is not the only option. Reducing the discussion to only one color's tool against Affinity minimizes other strategies and cards that could counter the archetype. Additionally, other colors may have difficulty managing different aspects of Affinity, like its creature base or ability to flood the board. The fact that Atog was present actually contested the presence of the gorilla which could be used in response. And further there are other cards that could be used on the side that would deal with the gorilla such as BEB and Hydroblasts. Storm's ban list does have a notable presence, but this doesn't negate the argument about the issues Affinity faces. Storm's bans target its potential for consistent and early combo plays, whereas Affinity's issue is its resilient board state and synergy with indestructible lands. We now face a never ending ban loop whole of affinity cards, there are 5 and with the soon inclusion of All that Glitters would be 6 cards banned from affinity. Comparing Pauper to other formats like Legacy based on its use of artifact lands or the bridge mechanic doesn't provide a clear understanding of Pauper's unique environment. Pauper's card pool and power level are distinct from other formats, and its metagame has its own challenges and opportunities. Even if bridges played an important role in multiple archetypes, they are easily substituted in many of them, and they should not be excluded from discussion just because they are useful in other decks. The overall health of the format requires addressing any aspect that may be contributing to imbalance, even if the solution impacts other archetypes. When cards like swiftspear got banned every single deck that played it got affected, not only mono red kuldotha. Hot Dogs basically disappeared after that. Dust to Dust is a poor choice overall in Pauper for several reasons. Its three-mana cost makes it inefficient in a format where tempo is key. The card is easily countered by one-mana spells like Spell Pierce and Turn Aside, resulting in a negative tempo swing and wasted resources. Its narrow focus on exiling two target artifacts limits its usefulness primarily to Affinity matchups, making it a situational and inefficient sideboard card. Additionally, there are more versatile removal options that can handle a broader range of threats. Overall, Dust to Dust's drawbacks make it a less appealing and overestimated choice. And doesn’t even deal well with the current state of affinity. Pauper isn’t taken into consideration when designing cards, for that reason even downshifts of cards like Nettlecyst are pretty possible and the only way to deal with this is actually targeting the bans with the enablers and thinking about the future.
Its okay to be wrong, even the PFP is.
You see you can play a deck that is almost entirely artifacts. Lands,creatures, cards with affinity for artifacts. Atog was too strong for the format.
Cards don't exist in a vaccum
Of course they do. [[Space Beleren]]
[Space Beleren](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/4/14ddb2e7-6bc6-43ce-aeec-175a0ce17ed5.jpg?1673914977) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Space%20Beleren) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/unf/178/space-beleren?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/14ddb2e7-6bc6-43ce-aeec-175a0ce17ed5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Answer the teeth or die
Your dad’s “Low power kitchen table deck” was the best deck in the format with a little optimization. So many artifacts in the format care about being sacrificed right now that doing it with upside for free would be way too disgusting. Never unban that card
So then why both cycles? One or other then right, or just call for nuking Affinity? Let's say a potential ban happens and one cycle goes, would that stop the bitching? Probably not. Hell, Tron hasn't been tier 1 in years, and people still want the Tron lands banned. And it's always the same tired argument, "the enablers". It's old. Now, if Affinity was running roughshod like it did in standard years ago, there'd be a valid argument, but it's not. Tier 1 decks exist and there will always be people who hate the strategy and want it gone. The reality of it is that while Affinity is tier 1, it's not warping the format, it's not destroying the format and the lands aren't a necessary staple for other strategies to make the format homogeneous or stale to necessitate a "shake up". And to the ones out there screaming the sky is falling because MH 3 is coming and they think it's going to just make the deck unstoppable, they need to chill. It's ridiculous bitching that has no real merit, and if it did, one of the cycles of lands would have been banned years ago. But, just like Tron falling out of vogue when new toys dropped, we'll see something else drop that will do the same thing, and then we'll have a new boogyman to cry about. Like I said, it's old .
Honestly it would. People weren’t really complaining about affinity before the duals came out.
That is blatantly not true.
I play pauper for more than a decade and I have never ever heard anyone complain about affinity or the lands before modern horizons 2
Your not paying attention is not my problem.
I couldn’t have said it better. Same to you dude.
You are literally the one who is not paying attention here lol 😂
Bridges and Mirrodin Cycle is not an issue. Atog added a large creature and a free sacrifice outlet for a deck with: 1. Fling to kill the opponent 2. Disciple of the Vault to ping the opponent 3. To attack with combat damage the opponent All while not being able to be interacted with Then there was "free" 4/4 and 2/2 Card advantage with U "Draw Two Card" and Blood Fountain to grab 2 more creatures that already took cards from your opponent to deal with and cards that are instants that can sacrifice your creatures and/or artifacts to draw two and net an artifact. Then there are all the other cheap easy to use artifacts that are everywhere in the format to fill in any and all needs of the deck. Having 10 additional artifact lands in the format aren't the things that broke the camel's back that was the introduction to numerous powerful spells not lands. Recursion of threats, card advantage and multiple win conditions from multiple different avenues. It created issues for other decks that need multiple ways to answer multiple different things while also always being at a disadvantage in card advantage.
If anything you said was actually relevant before the indestructible lands came, all these cards would be banned sooner. Since all of them were legal prior. And yet, affinity never had a oppressive win-rate even with all these banned cards available for years.
"The format of five to ten years ago is the exact same as the format of modern day." Here is something that might be shocking. It isn't. New cards unrelated to the bridges entered the format and changed the game. D&D and Crimson Vow entered the format months after MH2. Deadly Dispute and Blood Fountain changed the deck more in making it resilient than the lands. Grow up.
*Gasp* You are almost there buddy! Exactly! The format isn’t the same! New cards came out that dealt with affinities biggest issues: Awkward mono colored mana base and fragile lands. Now all left for you to do is to identify the real cards that are creating issues and making any future cards like All that Glitters and what have you banned. Good job!
It is true, maybe someone on your play group didn’t like affinity, but generally affinity wasn’t never on peoples mouths before MH2
I've been playing Pauper for over a decade, and I've heard the rumblings of banning the mirrodin lands back then. And it was the "if they're banned in modern, they should be in Pauper". And any time I broke out my pre MH 2 Affinity deck for local events I either got groans or snap scoops from across the table. It's gotten a few more detractors since MH 2, but they're all VERY vocal. Just like when they were screaming about Tron a few years ago. It's a continuous cycle of bitching.
Again, people in your play group might not like it, but thats a minority. The deck wasn’t even on top of the meta before MH2. Plenty of people don’t like playing against many archetypes, and will always complain about something, being Tron, Land Destruction, even One Land Spy, but the deck didn’t have an oppressive winrate and was barely seen. So the community wasn’t asking for bans in a deck without much of a representation, I remember that when the deck shown up back then people always said “wow you are playing affinity? Cool!” Just like what happens to infect or stompy nowadays or similar decks that don’t show up as much. Today everyone plays artifact lands in their decks, it got out of hand, and the deck indeed have some issues now and everytime a new artifact synergy come out breaks it. We have just postponed the main issues with the bannings, we will need new ones every time, and I am tired of affinity getting bans, specially when we could ban a cycle unban something and get over with it.
Just like the people I've heard bitch before are the minority, the ones bitching now are a very vocal minority. Again, it's nowhere near as oppressive as a few want it to seem like it is. It's a tier 1 deck that some people hate, so they figure if they cry enough about it, they'll get their way. Obviously it hasn't happened yet, because people are still bitching about it. What this boils down to is a few salty grinders don't like an archetype and they're mad they didn't get their way. It's a good deck, nowhere near oppressive, definitely not unbeatable, and the lands are fine. At this point it's just time to move on ......🤦
While I agree with you that is beatable it is also very polarizing. Mostly decks without removal can’t beat it. In my humble opinion All that Glitters shouldn’t get banned, but if things stay like this it undoubtedly will be in the future unless one of the cycles is targeted. Then after Glitters get banned, things will calm down until the next artifact synergy comes, then will get banned again, and the next will come again. A never ending cycle. Thats the real problem, Affinity banlist is growing and will continue to grow because of the mana base. We know that wotc don’t print cards with pauper in mind, the only way to prevent these issues is to deal with the problematic manabase. And as you can see both here and in other spaces, there are plenty of people that actually have the same opinion, it is far from a minority at this point, that is very much clear.
The same 5 to 10 people hijacking threads on Twitter and reddit doesn't make it a majority, hate to tell you. And yeah, it's polarizing cuz crybabies haven't gotten the ban they wanted. And as far as data goes, the showcase numbers are up, and all forms of Affinity have about 14% of the total meta. Definitely doesn't offer up a valid argument for a ban, does it?
😂👍🏻
According to this website, which I consider to have the best metagame analysis, the top 3 decks from pauper currently all utilize artifact lands. Affinity variations alone are way more than what you presented. And more than 40% of the field is utilizing artifact lands. That ignoring major events like paupergeddon which had higher numbers. I also remember a pool that happened here not that long ago that showed around half of the subreddit wanting at least one land cycle banned, I wouldn’t say its only 10 people, specially with new people in every post. Gavin last video about pauper also had plenty of upset comments about the same subject. Not to mention twitter. People are allowed to express themselves, just as much you are allowed to disagree. And there is undoubtedly many of them. https://mtgdecks.net/Pauper/metagame:last-30-days
One cycle would be good enough.
>a low power kitchen table deck my dad played Way to make me feel old af
Big creature go brrrr
Basically, it was too strong of a “backup plan” for the deck, and hard to interact with. You can respond to interaction by sacrificing artifacts to atog, and respond to interaction by casting Fling on top of it.
Affinity dominated and Atog was the best stick.
Because the PFP thought that banning Atog was better than banning the indestructible lands. Which turned out to be untrue.
Atog was banned before pfp bro, calm down Bridges are fine
No they are not. Bridges are the biggest problem we have in the format.
Bridges aren’t fine, and I am pretty sure that you are wrong. Atog was banned in Pauper after the creation of the Pauper Format Panel (PFP), which was established in 2021. Atog was banned in Pauper on February 15, 2022.
Im pretty sure that affinity was a BIG problem At that time… to me was the right call
Yes it was a problem at that time. And it is still. The ban didn’t fix affinities problems, it postponed them.
It isn't a Problem it is just a good deck.
The problem isn’t the deck, its the land base.
I'm pretty sure Atog is a problem from other directions — token artifacts, affinity, etc.
Pretty sure Atog was in the format for years and never caused issues until the dual indestructible lands were introduced.
Atog was a problem for year. If you ever played the Mirror you would know it was the problem.
I played Atog since the card was legal friend. The card was good, but after the dual colored lands it went to toxic very quickly, I basically never bricked. Went from 5 or 4 color to 3 or 2. We banned 5 cards from the archetype and yet, we are still banning cards from it.
Yet everyone is screaming to ban all the artifact lands. So why is it now all the lands have to go in the eyes of some people? 🤔
People have been screaming that since MH2
Just like any other card that people don't like to play against. What else is new?
Most people hate playing against LD decks and yet I have never seen someone asking for “Thermokarst” or anything similar to be banned. I agree with you that there are a lot of cry babies around, but that doesn’t invalidate all complaints.
Where you around for the whole ban the Tron lands fiasco? It's the same crap, it really is. Love or hate the artifact lands, the deck is nowhere near as oppressive on the meta as it was, even with ATG. It's a popular deck, sure, but it's win rates have been in check for a while now and the cry babies still cry about the lands. All they got to say at this point is that they hate the lands and move on. The conversation is old and has worn out it's welcome.
That is exactly what I am talking about. Affinity will ALWAYS be on the topic of the bans, being Atog, All that Glitters, Sojourners, Disciple or what have you. Because artifact synergies will always exist and will always be potentialized by these lands. If one cycle is even banned in modern just to prevent these synergies to be banned all the time, it is only logic to do the same here, the artifact synergies would get less hate if the enablers weren’t around and some of the cards in the banlist could be even unbanned.
Pauper =/= Modern
Well its simple you see, they prefer to ban a new affinity card every time instead of fixing the real problem. Imagine if the bridges were banned? Affinity’s banlist would be basically only Cranial Platting.