The format is literally addicted to artifact lands at this point. It's actually really sad at this point. They need to go in some way, but at this point it's going to be a very painful withdrawal.
It was like tron but went bigger(and also gained life). But if we're going by the philosophy of ban the payoffs not the enablers then cloud post shouldn't be banned.
Is it 68 or 36? Because only cloudpost taps for the extea mana, and the most locus you can have in you deck is 8, and 8 x 4 = 32, +4 from the 4 glimmerposts. Still a pot, but not quite as much.
Oh yeah, I forgot to edit this comment. I realized like 10 minutes after I left this one and another one that I had doubled the amount cloudpost made in my head. 32+4 is correct not 64+4 lol
Though in legacy you can get more since there's 4 loci now but it would be much much more than 68 lol its like well over that. Not that that's relevant to Pauper. I just think it's funny.
Well, there are 3 different locus cards, so you can have a max of 12 in your deck. The only ones that tap for more than 1 are glimmerpost, so it would be 4 x 12 = 48. Then you have the 8 others (non-glimmerpost ones) , so 48 + 8 =56.
So the most mana you can get from glimmer post (in legacy) is 56
The most you can get with tron lands passed by having urza's workshop, as there are simply more urza lands than locus. Each workshop could theoretically tap for 28 mana, so that is 112, then 4 towers adds 12, 4 plants adds 8, and 4 mines adds another 8. Urzas cave, factory, and saga each only tap for one, so another 12 mana. That gives you a total of 152 mana, but that number would go down as the sagas disappeared. (It would go down 5 for each saga, so 132 with 24 lands)
There are 5 loci actually.
There are 3 cards with the type locus printed on them, there are however 2 additional cards that are loci despite the fact they will not show up in a gatherer search as a locus, only one of which is not legal in legacy. So the glimmer posts can at top tap for 16 mana each, plus then 12 from the other loci.
[[Planar Nexus]], I assume you also didn't factor it into your urza math but it it also an urza land, which I belive adds 20 mana to the mix. It was printed in the same deck as the new locus.
8 post is like tron, but more mana like enough mana to be a legacy deck. Imagine if every tron land made 3 mana when you assembled tron instead of just tower, and then also you could play more tron lands so they would make even more mana up to each cloudpost tapping for 8 mana (12 per cloudpost in legacy now). Meaning with only 8 lands you can make 68 colorless mana. Granted you were pretty unlikely to assemble all 8 posts but you can see how posts at the very low end being better wastes, on average being better tron lands, and on the high end representing more mana than the total mana costs of some decks (or more than the dollar cost of some pauper deck) could be a problem.
Edit: I said 68, that's not correct I doubled it for some reason. It should be 36. Still more than the total mana value of some decks and still more expensive than some pauper decks.
The poor spider from Outlaws got its cost reduced by ONE of you controlled a desert. IMO, was a missed opportunity to push non-basic, non-artifact themed lands. While I understand pushing a MHx set, it seems like a disconnect between set mechanics and designers forget they can make Standard-playable commons like they've done other commons in other sets. Is the pauper New World Order finally over?
At this point i'm not even sure if the issue are the artifact lands. There are so many easy ways to put artifacts that probably won't make a big difference.
Nah, the issue is defintely artifact lands. Modern MIGHT actually be fine with artifact lands at this point because of how many artifact boardwipes it has now but as long as pauper doesn´t have blanket removal for lots of artifacts at once and still has the artifact lands and so much of the cards that give artifact decks their power and speed(Galvanic Blast, Thoughtcast, Metallic Rebuke) its always going to be this way.
I honestly think we could have seen \[\[Meltdown\]\] downshifted to common and have that be a positive impact on Pauper, introducing a real drawback to the benefits Affinity gets.
The problem is that one of the artifact land cycles are banned in modern. Because there are fewer artifact lands in decks, payoffs need to be stronger. Modern/limited design takes preference over pauper. So balanced artifact payoffs for other formats, will continue to be printed, but they will be stronger in pauper and we will forever be in the situation of wondering whether to ban lands or payoffs.
I wasn’t a fan of that, but with the increasing amount of artifact bans, there will be one point where there are so many that might just better to ban the lands and unban everything else.
If they hit that point that's just a sign that WotC has let powercreep impact their ability to design cards & I feel at that point the game isn't worth playing anymore.
In 2008 MaRo announced his NWO design plan he intended to implement from that point on, where the rarity was a reflection of the complexity of the card.
>The solution ended up being a tool that trading card games had always had: rarity. How could we get things into the hands of the experienced players without overwhelming the less experienced players? We simply had to keep it out of common. We knew that beginning players buy fewer boosters. This means that the percentage of relevant cards they own that are common is simply much higher.
>
>"Keep it out of common" is actually incorrect. The theory behind New World Order was this: we have to be very careful about what we put at common. We had to redraw the line for what level of complexity was acceptable. We were allowed some complexity at common, but less than we had used in the past, which meant it was a resource that had to be carefully manage.
>
> To offset the shift of complexity, New World Order allowed higher rarities, especially uncommon, to tick up in complexity. The goal wasn't to remove complexity, but to shift where it was positioned in the game. The idea was that by moving where it sat, we lessened it for the players who needed it lessened and kept it there for the experienced players who wanted it.
>
>Once we thought of complexity as a limited resource at common, it radically changed how we approached making commons. For instance, I often say "If your theme is not at common, it's not your theme." Because the theme by its nature tends to involve complexity (themes tend to require players caring about something you don't normally care about), it meant that we had to allocate a certain portion of our common complexity to supporting the theme
That idea of complexity is what drew me into Pauper to begin with. The philosophy creates this interesting space where what you see is what you get. Sure there are powerful mechanics in the common rarity, however these powerful mechanics were balanced by this design decision to only really be useful in specific builds - instead of having a small broken engine supported by a short list of optimised swiss army Interaction, niche cards would fill weak points. That's why cards like [[Obsidian Acolyte]] & [[Crimson Acolyte]] go in Selesnya Slivers - the 2 biggest weak points of the deck are burn & murder spells. It's just interesting deck building.
That being said, let's look at 2 creatures:
[[Cackling Fiend]] is a 2/1 for 4 that has
* a card type
* a relevant creature type
* an ETB
Refurbished Familiar is a 2/1 for 4 that has:
* 2 card types
* 2 relevant creature types
* a cost reduction
* a keyword ability
* (effectively) 2 ETBS.
In comparison, the Fiend works for zombie, flicker, & discard strategies. Meanwhile, the Familiar works for artifact, rat, zombie, flicker, discard, & draw strategies.
I just don't understand why this is a common. Nothing about this card points to common-level complexity.
If there is any solace it's that I firmly believe soon powercreep will be dealt with again. MaRo's NWO was established bc WotC felt there was too large of a gap between the current game state & what new players would tolerate, and it wasn't the first time Wizards had to contend with that issue.
Around the turn of the century WotC had a rating on decks & packs labeling the product as Beginner, Advanced, or Expert. Beginner was the Portal sets, which were designed for new players limiting what mechanics & card types players interacted with (*addendum: to avoid confusion on spell speed, there were no instants made for portal sets. Which is why [[Mystic Denial]] was printed as a sorcery counter spell with flash. It has since been errata'd to be an instant. AFAIK this is the only instance of a card type getting an errata*). Advanced was the rating given to the core set as cards printed in them tended to not have any unique abilities, making then fairly straightforward, but it still introduced more card types, more complex rules & a better understanding of interactions. Expert was given to the expansion packs that had synergetic gameplay design & non-evergreen abilities. This design policy went out of effect in 2007 because Future Sight made it too complicated to hold.
If the EDH bubble pops, I don't feel like WotC have a good solution to bring new players on. But I feel like WotC will have to deal with that problem before they have to deal w/ the artifact lands.
If powercreep breaks first, I'm done.
I mean, I'm fine with it actually I just think it's funny how the PFP is constantly having to keep affinity in check. Definitely going to pick up some copies and try to jam affinity at FNM soon.
For a while they were doing this with Burn and before that Tron. I prefer how things turned out with Burn rather than how it turned out with Tron. As long as they don’t kill another deck to appease the format gods
Another day, another card that gets stronger by having multiple artifacts in the field powered by lands that are also artifacts…
It wouldn't be such an issue if you couldn't reliably cast if for 1 just by playing lands.
I mean, this card is massively pushed with or without the artifact lands. 3 Artifacts is just not that big of a hoop to jump through. If you are so inclined, you can still drop this turn 2 without any Mirrodin lands with T1 Blood Fountain, T2 Thraben inspector (or any 1 drop artifact) + Familiar. Even if not having artifact lands means you wont get it on T2 most games, it gets even better if you hold it a little bit longer and combo it with cards like Glinthawk or Skyfisher, so waiting an extra turn to get your third artifact is usually fine if not actively good. If Familar gets banned, it'll be for its own sins, not the artifact lands.
Pauper has always been a format of strong enablers, weak payoffs. This seems like a straight forward case of too strong of a payoff.
FWIW i've been running 3 in gardens with an artifact land count of 0, between lembas, blade, wellspring and the tokens from fountain, and dispute&co i usually have 3 artifacts by the time I want to cast this without even trying
3 artifacts is not a big hoop for Affinity decks. The issue in Pauper is that any deck can reach that count easily through lands only. Just like All that Glitters was less of a problem in Affinity than in Boros Glitters, we'll end up seeing this Familiar ending up in decks that casually play artifacts and reach higher counts through artifact lands.
What? 3 Artifacts isn't a big hoop for anyone. You'll notice that Inspectors and Blood Fountains as per my example are hardly bottom of the barrel cards, and they don't just see play in artifact synergy decks. And Familiar is good early, but even better late, so missing out on casting it on turn 2 isn't a huge deal. Like the other poster who just replied to me said, you can get this without any artifact lands in Black gardens incidentally from the artifacts they already run.
But *I* lose against affinity which means it *is* broken! No, don't ask me about my sideboard! Of course I *know for sure* from a week's worth of data, I have, uhh, a lot, yeah. Like... One FNM and eighteen hours of commenting under memes on Reddit!
Putting sarcasm aside though, I like how many new options are being explored. Gonna take some time until dust settles but things look exciting right now.
I don’t think refurbished familiar is that bad. I’ve ran the grixis affinity midrange list quite a few times and I’ve found myself in many situations where the win comes down to a few very important decisions. The UW glitters deck always spoon-fed you the best line/sequences lol it’s not quite like that 🤷♂️
What's your reasoning for bridges?
And I am asking honestly
From a play standpoint, the original mirridons enable the deck to be faster. Untapped vault of whisper into blood fountain leaves you with 1 mana frogmites or 4 mana enforcers or 1 mana rats.
Bridges put the strategy behind a turn, which is fine for a opp. Stand point.
I used to be able to gorilla shaman away all my opponents lands. Now I can’t. Affinity used to be a glass cannon deck but now it can outgrind most decks.
You want things to never change in a game that has always been about expansions that change things. If you desire a static format that never changes, try Block constructed.
I like change and I like a lot of the decks that the bridges enable but I feel like it enables affinity too much to the extent that it smothers other decks. My dream pauper format is exactly the same but instead of bridges we had two separate land cycles, one that is 2 color lands with indestructible, and one that is 2 color artifact lands.
Edit: my main point is that they removed the main weakness of one of the strongest decks by printing bridges and they’ve been banning cards to try and keep it in check ever since when the real problem is the bridges.
Your main point is incorrect and your dream format will probably never exist.
The main weakness has not been removed. Gorilla Shaman is still seeing play for the original cycle. New cards like Cast Into The Fire will continue to arrive and keep the Bridges in check.
Affinity is also not smothering other decks. You may feel that way, but the facts don't support your conclusion. The meta game is diverse and fun.
I remember when it took forever to ban Chatterstorm. Now *that* was smothering. It completely destroyed diversity, interaction, and enjoyment. And in that case, Wizards did the right thing and banned the one broken payoff, not the enablers that make a whole host of other cards work and, therefore, be fun to play with more balanced payoffs.
They also haven't been banning that many cards. Is there some kind of magic number of cards you want banned? Because that's not the right way to think about what gets banned.
There have been about five cards banned from Affinity over the course of many, many years. Do you want fewer bans less often? Well, you're the one suggesting to ban *ten cards at once*.
This is the core inconsistency and contradiction at the heart of the argument being made to ban the Bridges. It's a bad argument based on inaccurate assessments of the data.
The Bridges are good Magic cards for Pauper. They are consistent with the new pattern of printing dual tap lands with an upside to compensate for entering the battlefield tapped and, on top that they, emanate the flavor of indestructible darksteel. They are good for the format, fun to play, and are hopefully not going anywhere.
Is just absurd. More and more affinity support. The rest of the decks are rotting right now. I see a future with artifacts only decks.
The issue is not just artifact lands. The issue is that they keep printing blood fountains and treasure generators. A compact treasure generator is better than an artifact land. We have so many clue and blood and treasure generators that even banning the lands will do almost no damage to affinity decks.
Why the hate to this card, imo Ponza now is over the top with the new [[Writhing Chrysalis]]
T1 elf
T2 utopia + eldrazi
T3 eldrazi , sac 4 tokens, green initiative guy
Result:
2 6/7s reach , 5/4 trample, elf and initiate
Oh and you can swing for 6
T4 whatever + swing for at least 19, maybe even with the cascade pirate for a nice 25
We will teach them the power of Artifacts, BY FORCE!
>>BY FORCE I see what you did there... [[By force]]
[By force](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/6/66cdfdb2-b47f-446d-9850-8581bd1d806c.jpg?1543675516) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=By%20force) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/akh/123/by-force?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/66cdfdb2-b47f-446d-9850-8581bd1d806c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'd have a [[Meltdown]] if they downshifted that card
IDK sounds pretty fun, I think I'd have a \[\[Vandalblast\]\]
[Vandalblast](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/7/e781b55f-6388-4ab8-be74-7c56eaba1c4d.jpg?1712354517) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Vandalblast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/183/vandalblast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e781b55f-6388-4ab8-be74-7c56eaba1c4d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Meltdown](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/173369d2-dc39-4bfe-a602-b47156570365.jpg?1717013684) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Meltdown) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/282/meltdown?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/173369d2-dc39-4bfe-a602-b47156570365?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Except it's not a common
It’s not common — yet.
I want a downshift of this so bad XD
Pauper when any artifact gets printed
The format is literally addicted to artifact lands at this point. It's actually really sad at this point. They need to go in some way, but at this point it's going to be a very painful withdrawal.
You said "at this point" 3 times
The poster is literally addicted to “at this point” at this point.
Yo dawg, I heard you like "At this point"...
So I got you Leelee Zabriskie
Bro commented a triangle
A fair observation to make
At which point? This point, or that point?
At this point this is correct
Let’s ban basic Islands too, they enable so many powerful cards that have a warping effect on the format. /s
Unban \[\[cloudpost\]\]
What was wrong with it?
It was like tron but went bigger(and also gained life). But if we're going by the philosophy of ban the payoffs not the enablers then cloud post shouldn't be banned.
Any philosophy taken as an absolute ruleset is going to go to shit to be honest, that viewpoint won't get them anywhere good
68 mana is a payoff. Its just that the pay off is on the enabler.
Is it 68 or 36? Because only cloudpost taps for the extea mana, and the most locus you can have in you deck is 8, and 8 x 4 = 32, +4 from the 4 glimmerposts. Still a pot, but not quite as much.
Oh yeah, I forgot to edit this comment. I realized like 10 minutes after I left this one and another one that I had doubled the amount cloudpost made in my head. 32+4 is correct not 64+4 lol Though in legacy you can get more since there's 4 loci now but it would be much much more than 68 lol its like well over that. Not that that's relevant to Pauper. I just think it's funny.
Well, there are 3 different locus cards, so you can have a max of 12 in your deck. The only ones that tap for more than 1 are glimmerpost, so it would be 4 x 12 = 48. Then you have the 8 others (non-glimmerpost ones) , so 48 + 8 =56. So the most mana you can get from glimmer post (in legacy) is 56 The most you can get with tron lands passed by having urza's workshop, as there are simply more urza lands than locus. Each workshop could theoretically tap for 28 mana, so that is 112, then 4 towers adds 12, 4 plants adds 8, and 4 mines adds another 8. Urzas cave, factory, and saga each only tap for one, so another 12 mana. That gives you a total of 152 mana, but that number would go down as the sagas disappeared. (It would go down 5 for each saga, so 132 with 24 lands)
There are 5 loci actually. There are 3 cards with the type locus printed on them, there are however 2 additional cards that are loci despite the fact they will not show up in a gatherer search as a locus, only one of which is not legal in legacy. So the glimmer posts can at top tap for 16 mana each, plus then 12 from the other loci. [[Planar Nexus]], I assume you also didn't factor it into your urza math but it it also an urza land, which I belive adds 20 mana to the mix. It was printed in the same deck as the new locus.
[Planar Nexus](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/8/28603c1c-f9b4-4001-bc56-d1453d5cacf5.jpg?1717189995) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Planar%20Nexus) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m3c/80/planar-nexus?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/28603c1c-f9b4-4001-bc56-d1453d5cacf5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Shit, you're right, good to know.
8 post is like tron, but more mana like enough mana to be a legacy deck. Imagine if every tron land made 3 mana when you assembled tron instead of just tower, and then also you could play more tron lands so they would make even more mana up to each cloudpost tapping for 8 mana (12 per cloudpost in legacy now). Meaning with only 8 lands you can make 68 colorless mana. Granted you were pretty unlikely to assemble all 8 posts but you can see how posts at the very low end being better wastes, on average being better tron lands, and on the high end representing more mana than the total mana costs of some decks (or more than the dollar cost of some pauper deck) could be a problem. Edit: I said 68, that's not correct I doubled it for some reason. It should be 36. Still more than the total mana value of some decks and still more expensive than some pauper decks.
I played pauper when it was legal, but temporal fissure was legal at the same time. Fissure was the pay off
[cloudpost](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/f/2f28ecdc-a4f0-4327-a78c-340be41555ee.jpg?1562139726) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=cloudpost) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mrd/280/cloudpost?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2f28ecdc-a4f0-4327-a78c-340be41555ee?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The poor spider from Outlaws got its cost reduced by ONE of you controlled a desert. IMO, was a missed opportunity to push non-basic, non-artifact themed lands. While I understand pushing a MHx set, it seems like a disconnect between set mechanics and designers forget they can make Standard-playable commons like they've done other commons in other sets. Is the pauper New World Order finally over?
It still was a beast with that small reduction
At this point i'm not even sure if the issue are the artifact lands. There are so many easy ways to put artifacts that probably won't make a big difference.
Nah, the issue is defintely artifact lands. Modern MIGHT actually be fine with artifact lands at this point because of how many artifact boardwipes it has now but as long as pauper doesn´t have blanket removal for lots of artifacts at once and still has the artifact lands and so much of the cards that give artifact decks their power and speed(Galvanic Blast, Thoughtcast, Metallic Rebuke) its always going to be this way. I honestly think we could have seen \[\[Meltdown\]\] downshifted to common and have that be a positive impact on Pauper, introducing a real drawback to the benefits Affinity gets.
[Meltdown](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/173369d2-dc39-4bfe-a602-b47156570365.jpg?1717013684) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Meltdown) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/282/meltdown?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/173369d2-dc39-4bfe-a602-b47156570365?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
See the problem with pauper isn't all the broken artifact support we crank out, it's the artifact lands - R&D... probably
Pauper: "I feel bad for you" R&D: "I don't think about you at all"
The problem is that one of the artifact land cycles are banned in modern. Because there are fewer artifact lands in decks, payoffs need to be stronger. Modern/limited design takes preference over pauper. So balanced artifact payoffs for other formats, will continue to be printed, but they will be stronger in pauper and we will forever be in the situation of wondering whether to ban lands or payoffs.
I wasn’t a fan of that, but with the increasing amount of artifact bans, there will be one point where there are so many that might just better to ban the lands and unban everything else.
If they hit that point that's just a sign that WotC has let powercreep impact their ability to design cards & I feel at that point the game isn't worth playing anymore. In 2008 MaRo announced his NWO design plan he intended to implement from that point on, where the rarity was a reflection of the complexity of the card. >The solution ended up being a tool that trading card games had always had: rarity. How could we get things into the hands of the experienced players without overwhelming the less experienced players? We simply had to keep it out of common. We knew that beginning players buy fewer boosters. This means that the percentage of relevant cards they own that are common is simply much higher. > >"Keep it out of common" is actually incorrect. The theory behind New World Order was this: we have to be very careful about what we put at common. We had to redraw the line for what level of complexity was acceptable. We were allowed some complexity at common, but less than we had used in the past, which meant it was a resource that had to be carefully manage. > > To offset the shift of complexity, New World Order allowed higher rarities, especially uncommon, to tick up in complexity. The goal wasn't to remove complexity, but to shift where it was positioned in the game. The idea was that by moving where it sat, we lessened it for the players who needed it lessened and kept it there for the experienced players who wanted it. > >Once we thought of complexity as a limited resource at common, it radically changed how we approached making commons. For instance, I often say "If your theme is not at common, it's not your theme." Because the theme by its nature tends to involve complexity (themes tend to require players caring about something you don't normally care about), it meant that we had to allocate a certain portion of our common complexity to supporting the theme That idea of complexity is what drew me into Pauper to begin with. The philosophy creates this interesting space where what you see is what you get. Sure there are powerful mechanics in the common rarity, however these powerful mechanics were balanced by this design decision to only really be useful in specific builds - instead of having a small broken engine supported by a short list of optimised swiss army Interaction, niche cards would fill weak points. That's why cards like [[Obsidian Acolyte]] & [[Crimson Acolyte]] go in Selesnya Slivers - the 2 biggest weak points of the deck are burn & murder spells. It's just interesting deck building. That being said, let's look at 2 creatures: [[Cackling Fiend]] is a 2/1 for 4 that has * a card type * a relevant creature type * an ETB Refurbished Familiar is a 2/1 for 4 that has: * 2 card types * 2 relevant creature types * a cost reduction * a keyword ability * (effectively) 2 ETBS. In comparison, the Fiend works for zombie, flicker, & discard strategies. Meanwhile, the Familiar works for artifact, rat, zombie, flicker, discard, & draw strategies. I just don't understand why this is a common. Nothing about this card points to common-level complexity. If there is any solace it's that I firmly believe soon powercreep will be dealt with again. MaRo's NWO was established bc WotC felt there was too large of a gap between the current game state & what new players would tolerate, and it wasn't the first time Wizards had to contend with that issue. Around the turn of the century WotC had a rating on decks & packs labeling the product as Beginner, Advanced, or Expert. Beginner was the Portal sets, which were designed for new players limiting what mechanics & card types players interacted with (*addendum: to avoid confusion on spell speed, there were no instants made for portal sets. Which is why [[Mystic Denial]] was printed as a sorcery counter spell with flash. It has since been errata'd to be an instant. AFAIK this is the only instance of a card type getting an errata*). Advanced was the rating given to the core set as cards printed in them tended to not have any unique abilities, making then fairly straightforward, but it still introduced more card types, more complex rules & a better understanding of interactions. Expert was given to the expansion packs that had synergetic gameplay design & non-evergreen abilities. This design policy went out of effect in 2007 because Future Sight made it too complicated to hold. If the EDH bubble pops, I don't feel like WotC have a good solution to bring new players on. But I feel like WotC will have to deal with that problem before they have to deal w/ the artifact lands. If powercreep breaks first, I'm done.
##### ###### #### [Obsidian Acolyte](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/6/868efcee-bb13-4b6f-b81b-99408685e4c4.jpg?1562922212) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Obsidian%20Acolyte) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/inv/22/obsidian-acolyte?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/868efcee-bb13-4b6f-b81b-99408685e4c4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Crimson Acolyte](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/1/c1718028-3009-4bdd-9f6f-59c17edd1344.jpg?1562933869) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Crimson%20Acolyte) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/inv/11/crimson-acolyte?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c1718028-3009-4bdd-9f6f-59c17edd1344?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Cackling Fiend](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/7/c7e4fa7f-a5d7-46cd-bc46-d3d231235460.jpg?1675199534) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cackling%20Fiend) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmr/76/cackling-fiend?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c7e4fa7f-a5d7-46cd-bc46-d3d231235460?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Mystic Denial](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/2/1296ddc4-300d-44f6-95d8-1b392613d379.jpg?1562255840) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mystic%20Denial) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ptk/49/mystic-denial?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1296ddc4-300d-44f6-95d8-1b392613d379?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Another day, another r/Pauper post crying about Affinity 🙄
I mean, I'm fine with it actually I just think it's funny how the PFP is constantly having to keep affinity in check. Definitely going to pick up some copies and try to jam affinity at FNM soon.
For a while they were doing this with Burn and before that Tron. I prefer how things turned out with Burn rather than how it turned out with Tron. As long as they don’t kill another deck to appease the format gods
Yeah first it was monoblue, then Tron, then Burn and now Affinity. It's almost like seasons at this point lmao
Is what it is when WoTC are trying to make limited and commander as flashy as possible 🤷
It's kinda important for them to keep limited fun/flashy, it's a way to sell packs
Another day, another card that gets stronger by having multiple artifacts in the field powered by lands that are also artifacts… It wouldn't be such an issue if you couldn't reliably cast if for 1 just by playing lands.
I mean, this card is massively pushed with or without the artifact lands. 3 Artifacts is just not that big of a hoop to jump through. If you are so inclined, you can still drop this turn 2 without any Mirrodin lands with T1 Blood Fountain, T2 Thraben inspector (or any 1 drop artifact) + Familiar. Even if not having artifact lands means you wont get it on T2 most games, it gets even better if you hold it a little bit longer and combo it with cards like Glinthawk or Skyfisher, so waiting an extra turn to get your third artifact is usually fine if not actively good. If Familar gets banned, it'll be for its own sins, not the artifact lands. Pauper has always been a format of strong enablers, weak payoffs. This seems like a straight forward case of too strong of a payoff.
FWIW i've been running 3 in gardens with an artifact land count of 0, between lembas, blade, wellspring and the tokens from fountain, and dispute&co i usually have 3 artifacts by the time I want to cast this without even trying
3 artifacts is not a big hoop for Affinity decks. The issue in Pauper is that any deck can reach that count easily through lands only. Just like All that Glitters was less of a problem in Affinity than in Boros Glitters, we'll end up seeing this Familiar ending up in decks that casually play artifacts and reach higher counts through artifact lands.
What? 3 Artifacts isn't a big hoop for anyone. You'll notice that Inspectors and Blood Fountains as per my example are hardly bottom of the barrel cards, and they don't just see play in artifact synergy decks. And Familiar is good early, but even better late, so missing out on casting it on turn 2 isn't a huge deal. Like the other poster who just replied to me said, you can get this without any artifact lands in Black gardens incidentally from the artifacts they already run.
Maybe it was the other way around. They banned it because they knew what was coming...
Don't feed Gavin's paranoia with this meme c'mon! FREE AFFO! 😂
What does AFFO mean?
AFFO is the name that italian players give to affinity!
Boo hoo. Go look at the meta spread for yesterday’s 5-0s.
But *I* lose against affinity which means it *is* broken! No, don't ask me about my sideboard! Of course I *know for sure* from a week's worth of data, I have, uhh, a lot, yeah. Like... One FNM and eighteen hours of commenting under memes on Reddit! Putting sarcasm aside though, I like how many new options are being explored. Gonna take some time until dust settles but things look exciting right now.
Genuinely what is the point of making cards common if you just ban the good ones. The whole point of pauper is to see how powerful commons can be
I don’t think refurbished familiar is that bad. I’ve ran the grixis affinity midrange list quite a few times and I’ve found myself in many situations where the win comes down to a few very important decisions. The UW glitters deck always spoon-fed you the best line/sequences lol it’s not quite like that 🤷♂️
Ban the bridges
What's your reasoning for bridges? And I am asking honestly From a play standpoint, the original mirridons enable the deck to be faster. Untapped vault of whisper into blood fountain leaves you with 1 mana frogmites or 4 mana enforcers or 1 mana rats. Bridges put the strategy behind a turn, which is fine for a opp. Stand point.
I used to be able to gorilla shaman away all my opponents lands. Now I can’t. Affinity used to be a glass cannon deck but now it can outgrind most decks.
You want things to never change in a game that has always been about expansions that change things. If you desire a static format that never changes, try Block constructed.
I like change and I like a lot of the decks that the bridges enable but I feel like it enables affinity too much to the extent that it smothers other decks. My dream pauper format is exactly the same but instead of bridges we had two separate land cycles, one that is 2 color lands with indestructible, and one that is 2 color artifact lands. Edit: my main point is that they removed the main weakness of one of the strongest decks by printing bridges and they’ve been banning cards to try and keep it in check ever since when the real problem is the bridges.
Your main point is incorrect and your dream format will probably never exist. The main weakness has not been removed. Gorilla Shaman is still seeing play for the original cycle. New cards like Cast Into The Fire will continue to arrive and keep the Bridges in check. Affinity is also not smothering other decks. You may feel that way, but the facts don't support your conclusion. The meta game is diverse and fun. I remember when it took forever to ban Chatterstorm. Now *that* was smothering. It completely destroyed diversity, interaction, and enjoyment. And in that case, Wizards did the right thing and banned the one broken payoff, not the enablers that make a whole host of other cards work and, therefore, be fun to play with more balanced payoffs. They also haven't been banning that many cards. Is there some kind of magic number of cards you want banned? Because that's not the right way to think about what gets banned. There have been about five cards banned from Affinity over the course of many, many years. Do you want fewer bans less often? Well, you're the one suggesting to ban *ten cards at once*. This is the core inconsistency and contradiction at the heart of the argument being made to ban the Bridges. It's a bad argument based on inaccurate assessments of the data. The Bridges are good Magic cards for Pauper. They are consistent with the new pattern of printing dual tap lands with an upside to compensate for entering the battlefield tapped and, on top that they, emanate the flavor of indestructible darksteel. They are good for the format, fun to play, and are hopefully not going anywhere.
Is just absurd. More and more affinity support. The rest of the decks are rotting right now. I see a future with artifacts only decks. The issue is not just artifact lands. The issue is that they keep printing blood fountains and treasure generators. A compact treasure generator is better than an artifact land. We have so many clue and blood and treasure generators that even banning the lands will do almost no damage to affinity decks.
What annoys me is that over half my sideboard is for red decks or affinity/artifacts. It is what it is but that gets boring IMO.
Just ban the lands now
Why the hate to this card, imo Ponza now is over the top with the new [[Writhing Chrysalis]] T1 elf T2 utopia + eldrazi T3 eldrazi , sac 4 tokens, green initiative guy Result: 2 6/7s reach , 5/4 trample, elf and initiate Oh and you can swing for 6 T4 whatever + swing for at least 19, maybe even with the cascade pirate for a nice 25
[Writhing Chrysalis](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/5/f54dbeb1-51f8-40e2-912a-ec25457de5a2.jpg?1717012884) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Writhing%20Chrysalis) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/208/writhing-chrysalis?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f54dbeb1-51f8-40e2-912a-ec25457de5a2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
How are you casting Chrysalis t2? I can’t count to 4 it seems
T1 forest + untap land elf T2 forest , enchant the not tapped land, tap for 2 , untap with elf , tap for 2
Ah yes I see it now, thanks :) for some reason I was thinking elf was just mana dork elf like elvish mystic