MTG Pauper

Because it isn't fun because 2-3 decks shit on everything else. Sortof why splinter twin was banned in modern, decks that are so good that people always play them and win unopposed is toxic for a format.

Paper Pauper isn't an official Magic format at the moment, but some game stores play it.

Many people underestimate the potential the format has, they usually only think about the fact that it's a common-only format.

>>46076909
Yeah, this unfortunately. If they changed the rules to only include cards that were never printed at any rarity other than common, and had a banlist, it'd work great and be the best format in the game. As it is, the meta is more stale than year-old bread, but it makes for a good casual/kitchen table format since it's cheap and gentleman's agreements can keep it from being stupid.

>>46079077
>only include cards that were never printed at any rarity other than common
No lightning bolt, then? May as well be playing Standard. Or Hearthstone.

>gentleman's agreements can keep it from being stupid
This is true for every format.

>>46079348
Pauper doesn't need LB to be fun or good. And re: the gentleman's rule comment, yes, it's true, but try taking your genleman's deck to the LGS and not having official rules to combat the spergs and winhards. It's necessary to force assholes to capitulate if you plan on playing in a public space, let alone paper tourneys.

>>46076836
>How come Pauper isn't a more widespread format in paper?

Because all the actually interesting cards in the game are rares.

>>46079428
Pauper feels more like magic than any other format. Basically games are grind for win and you play against opponent hand instead of battlefield. (Well, when I say format, I didn't include cube, which is by far the best)

Because NWO has decreed fun/interesting/staples can only be printed at uncommon and above.

>>46076836
>How come Pauper isn't a more widespread format in paper?
Probably because no mather how much people bitch about prices, they are likely a big part of why people become attached to the game in the first place. It's not just a simple boardgame, it's something you put a great deal of time and effort into, either by straight up paying for cards with money you have worked hard to earn or by spending hours trading your way upwards. Pauper, as sweet as the format can be, lacks this element almost entirely.

That said, I do love me some Pauper. But as far as I'm concerned it's an online only format.

>>46079488
That's simpy not true. NWO only concerns complexity, not power level, and most Pauper staples are hardly complex. Some of the older cards, like Evincar's Justice or Capsize for example, likely wouldn't be printed at Common today, but they also likely wouldn't be printed at all today but because buyback is a broken mechanic that leads to repetitive gameplay, not because they are complex.

>>46076909
You haven't played much pauper, do you? Check some numbers: this is what a healthy meta looks like: http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/pauper#online

>>46079722
To be fair though, Pauper isn't really a format that optimizes quickly either due to not being as popular as other formats. The metagame as it looks right now is likely not how the metagame would look if had the same number of players as Standard or Modern.

How do I beat tron, I hate tron.

>Pauper

more like Poorper

>>46080409
I beat Tron by playing Teachings. They usually don't play all that many threats, so as long as I counter or Edict them they can't do much. It's worse when they play stuff like Mulldrifter and Oracle, but only because it makes my Edicts worse. The creatures themselves don't really threaten me.

>>46080409
Play Mono red

>>46076836
Because people will just play casual instead

>not saging the dead duplicate thread.