|
Post by mikeyk159 on Jan 28, 2013 0:12:56 GMT -5
Empty the warrens, Grapeshot and Invigorate have gotten the boot!!!!!
I for one can say, all 3 of these cards... GTFO!
|
|
avery61
Gravy Cake
Bacon!
Posts: 283
|
Post by avery61 on Jan 28, 2013 0:37:14 GMT -5
well I hate to see any card banned in one way..... but no more grapeshot/warrens combo woot. That neuters that deck but Invigorate changes but doesn't stop poison - hopefully it will be enough. So glad the post lands didn't get hit.
|
|
|
Post by yugular on Jan 28, 2013 1:31:17 GMT -5
This is stupid. The metagame was very balanced and storm and infect were not too powerful I just dont see any good reasons for these bans and i hate to see the format without tier1 combo.
|
|
slowe
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by slowe on Jan 28, 2013 1:42:12 GMT -5
Wow, it's hard to believe ... the ban list more than doubled in size. I think the format was pretty close to balanced, and I prefer not to see things banned that often. That said, the storm spells are probably too powerful and just too difficult to interact with. I won't miss them. On the other hand, I don't think infect as an archetype has ever been too powerful; the format handles the deck pretty well. Invigorate itself is certainly broken in infect, but the nut-draw of Forest, Elf, double Invigorate is rare enough to be balanced out by the deck's inconsistency. (Note: I may be a bit biased, as I primarily play Stompy and never lose to infect.) I do wish there had been some explanation of the bannings, like there was with Modern. The message is kind of clear anyway: the DCI wants Pauper to be slower, with no turn 2 or 3 kills. Anyway, what's done is done. Now the interesting part is how the metagame will shift. I feel like the bannings are a boon to Post decks and probably Affinity, which (I imagine) had trouble with fast non-interactive decks. I'm very interested to see how other people think this will shift the format. If anyone was around when Frantic Search was banned, perhaps you have some insight.
|
|
|
Post by jcrodd7776 on Jan 28, 2013 8:19:08 GMT -5
Wow is right. Forget the cards WOTC is paying MAJOR attention to pauper as a format. I agree with Matti that storm and poison were not unbeatable (beat both with WW after sideboard) but nonetheless those decks were one trick ponies that made me groan every time
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldgamer on Jan 28, 2013 8:23:30 GMT -5
::Looks at Pauper bannings:: "Really?" ::Facepalm::
::Looks at Modern bannings:: "Oh for fuck's sake." ::Pull gun:: ::Shoot himself::
|
|
|
Post by jdphoenix on Jan 28, 2013 8:24:58 GMT -5
What deck has a chance of beating post now?
|
|
zebek
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by zebek on Jan 28, 2013 10:15:25 GMT -5
I for one love these bannings, seriously......it's about time. I just love losing on turn 2 to the nut draw poison. I just love losing on turn 3 to the storm player grape shotting me to death, and it's doesn't matter if I counter the original grapeshot, it just clones it self anyway. The were really non-interactive ways to win. Maybe now we will start to see some other decks start to have a chance. I have a good brew that just cannont beat storm.....ever....so I never bring it to tournaments......but it has a shot against other ones. So I might consider bringing it now......
|
|
|
Post by RockBass on Jan 28, 2013 10:15:28 GMT -5
::Looks at Pauper bannings:: "Really?" ::Facepalm:: ::Looks at Modern bannings:: "Oh for fuck's sake." ::Pull gun:: ::Shoot himself:: Yeeeeepppppp. One of the reasons I'm anxious about getting in to Modern is the way the ban list is in constant flux. It makes me concerned that people will be turned away from Pauper for the same reasons. Like the dude that just decided to take a plunge and bought his playset of Invigorates. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by RockBass on Jan 28, 2013 10:22:04 GMT -5
I also wrote to Lee Sharpe on Twitter, asking for some explanation behind the choices. It's really weird that the Modern ban cards get 6 paragraphs of explanation, but Pauper was just thrown in as an "also ran".
|
|
avery61
Gravy Cake
Bacon!
Posts: 283
|
Post by avery61 on Jan 28, 2013 10:37:49 GMT -5
Yeah I would have liked to have received an explanation. This will free up multiple slots in all my SB's now, no auto-losses G1.
Woot - managed to sell my Invigorates before the price fell out!
|
|
kennon
Is Super Cool
Posts: 125
|
Post by kennon on Jan 28, 2013 12:28:38 GMT -5
I can understand taking out one Storm spell or the other, but both? That just seems to be an excessive move to kill the archetype completely rather than reign in its power. Not really a fan of that. But hey, on the other hand, maybe this will give my Golem deck the chance it needs to become the premier combo deck in the environment. Yeah, right.
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldgamer on Jan 28, 2013 12:40:08 GMT -5
::Looks at Pauper bannings:: "Really?" ::Facepalm:: ::Looks at Modern bannings:: "Oh for fuck's sake." ::Pull gun:: ::Shoot himself:: Yeeeeepppppp. One of the reasons I'm anxious about getting in to Modern is the way the ban list is in constant flux. It makes me concerned that people will be turned away from Pauper for the same reasons. Like the dude that just decided to take a plunge and bought his playset of Invigorates. Ouch. Yeah. Well, let me try to put down my thoughts in a way that is a little less hyperbolic. Concerning Pauper:As a deck, Infect is a non-issue. It's been around long enough that people know how to deal with it. It goes in and out of the metagame a bit like RDW does in other formats: doing its thing, before being hated out for a while. Banning Invigorate makes about as much sense as banning Dark Ritual. The card does something great in one deck, otherwise its poop. And no, I don't want to start a discussion on Dark Ritual. For Storm, I get it but I don't agree. Combo decks are never fun, but at least the Grapeshot/Warrens decks were honest about it. Your opponent either killed you on turn three or four or sputtered out and scooped. Games were fast. Now the alternative is Familiar Storm, which is agonizing. Your opponent is beating you. Kinda. Maybe. Might make the right play... or not. Removes a few permanents, and then you're back in the game. Somewhat. The game takes forever but you can't scoop because you still might be able to win. So you keep playing and drawing and maaaybe... eeehhh, you know. Almost theeere.... Not quite. Oooh... So no. That's not fun. I could accept Grapeshot being banned because there are so few answers to it in Pauper and most of them are White. But Warrens could have stayed. Every color has an answer to a bunch of Gobbos. And with only a single win-con, the deck would have been slower and less reliable. Which would have been fine. Concerning Modern:Really, WTF? With Bitterblossom and Jace being banned, it make sense for Bloodbraid Elf to be banned. Really, it should have been banned day 1. Thing is, when you look back, BBE used to be kept in check by Bitterblossom. And Jace used to keep in check, and was himself kept in check by BBE. Banning is not always the best option. What is attractive with Eternal and Non-Rotating formats is that you can play with powerful cards and powerful interactions. If I want to play a low-powered format, I'll play Standard. Or even better, I'll play Pauper. But when I'm playing an Eternal or Non-Rotating format, I want that power level. I want those great cards and those powerful interactions. And since the beginning, WotC has been consistently removing the most powerful cards from the Modern card pool. To balance it. To slow it down. But by doing so, they have been lowering the power level of the format, turning it into Standard with more cards. And IMHO, that's not how Wizards should handle it. Because Modern players do not want "Standard with more cards". Any decent Cube designer will tell you that balancing a Cube is a give and take process. Not a take and take process. Instead of trying to kill the best decks, why not give some tools back to the decks which could keep the top decks in check? Why not give Control decks some options so that they can become the third pillar of the format - as they should be? Why not print some good Wasteland-esque or Price of Progress-esque cards to punish hungry manabases? Why not give, instead of consistently taking away? Anyway, this is a Pauper forum. I'll stop before I bore anyone with my sensibilities. But again, WTF? I thought, I hoped, we had moved beyond that "Ban Everything!" phase.
|
|
|
Post by midnight03 on Jan 28, 2013 13:52:13 GMT -5
I agree with Grumpy, when it came to banning a storm card they should have just banned grapeshot because they only real answers are in white or if you're lucky enough hindering touch in blue. Taking away empty the warrens not only kills TPS, which is our most prevalent combo deck but also U/R storm and Goblinstorm. While the latter two were less prevalent I don't see why those combo decks should be punished because of the results of TPS.
As for invigorate I honestly don't see why they banned this. Yes losing to a nut draw infect deck is frustrating but other than that the deck is still pretty fragile, generally if you can make it past turn 3 or 4 you've generally won they game due to you either blowing their creatures out of the water or in the fact that they just don't have any buff spells left.
However my grievances aside a part of me is excited to see what will start to emerge here in the format over the next month or so.
|
|
zebek
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by zebek on Jan 28, 2013 14:13:21 GMT -5
So the question becomes...should I be selling my Benevolent Unicorns now? I see the price on Invigorate is still showing around 7-8$ but I am sure we will see this plunge over the next week because the poision decks will run rampant over the next week as will storm as everyone that currently plays it, wants to play it before it's gone. I agree with you guys, the grapeshot needed to go, but the warrens......it could have stayed and the deck would have survived but been less dominant.
|
|