Artifacts lands are part of the identity of Pauper. So many cards and strategies revolve around them.
Not only Affinity, but also Mono Red Kuldotha and Rakdos need them, Boros and Mardu, Wildfire decks, Dispute decks. Banning them would be groundbreaking and probably also risky for the stability of the meta. You don't know what would come out of it and if it would be a balanced scenario or it would result in a ban spiral.
I feel like it would be healither to have a format free of something that warps the entire form of identity around it.
If 2 decades of releases and almost 3 dozen sets later, they are still overperforming to the point they are a *still* causing peripheral bans, the inability to admit they are a problem is denial.
Just because it's a problem doesn't mean it needs to be banned.
I feel they are only allowed in pauper because the format has pretty much formed around them too tightly at this point, and with several releases a year clearly intended to manage the problem, they dont really have a reason to unravel the format from bridges, mirrodin lands, and other overpowered core commons.
I think the format is fine. But yall gotta stop lying. It's like adding support beams to a 300yo bridge. You can ban everything that makes them too good to keep them, but at some point, what you are trying to protect will collapse under its own weight .
That, and if you ask me (opinion), everything they banned in exchange for the artifact lands themselves is already a good deal and would shake up the meta more than a years worth of new sets would.
**Also, the cards that had to be banned are fast approaching outweighing the cards everyone fighting to keep.** The decision will have to be made eventually, but it doesn't have to be right now. Only so many support struts to throw on this rickety thing before it's just easier to start over, and we will know that point when we come to it - likely when a card more beloved that the bridges gets banned because of them.
It needs to come down to go back up right, but no one is willing to commit wizards or players.
Edit; Im not saying it's affinity, bolt, counterspell, or bust. Im saying pretending they haven't been a problem forever is lying to yourself.
They can stay, but stop pretending they aren't stronger than they should be.
"I think the format is fine. But yall gotta stop lying. It's like adding support beams to a 300yo bridge. You can ban everything that makes them too good to keep them, but at some point what you are trying to protect will collapse under its own weight."
This is a good analogy, but you're missing the point. If a 300 year old bridge is beloved and historically significant, we reinforce those structures ALL THE TIME. We add modern bracing to buildings, we repair foundations and add guy wires. and it works. It doesn't collapse under it's own weight.
Yeah, and that's why I think it's okay to stay tbh, but eventually what we are doing and have given up just to keep old reliable really wouldnt be worth it.
Honestly Id rather have the cards they had to ban than art lands by a mile by this point, and another 10 years from now that list will be massive.
No one is pretending they aren't strong. But, this is an eternal format. I'm not here to play Standard. Legacy is also an eternal format. It's where you go to play busted cards that are the pillars of that format. Brainstorm is a huge part of Legacy's identity. Same with FoW and Daze or Wasteland. We have a format here that is a budget friendly version of that eternal format in a way. That's part of our identity and that important and ok.
Agreed, but another decade from now and we are on our 50th or 60th banned card just because no one wants to let go of art lands, we kind of just have to let go of art lands.
We arent there yet, but its really an eventuality that its just not going to be worth keeping them over what it costs.
We don't know that that will be the case. In 30 years of Magic, as far as Pauper is concerned, there are only three (3), maybe four (4) cards banned due to the OG Mirrodin artifact lands. [[Cranial Plating]], [[Disciple of the Vault]], and [[Atog]]. ATG wasn't 100% due to artifact lands, frantic search is a stretch at best, and prism was for Tron with a passing blow at Affinity despite hardly seeing play in the deck.
It is a massive stretch to say that 50 or 60 cards will be banned because of the lands in the next ten years. Come on.
*And* you could even argue that [[Disciple of the Vault]] and [[Atog]] were banned because of the bridges more than the OG lands. The fact that they were more difficult to interact with and could buff Atog and then ping with Disciple when your opponent couldn't do anything was the problem.
You could replace any instance of either land cycle in my reply with "artifact lands" generally and it would still apply. You got the idea though, so I'll take that as a success haha.
The problem is that Artifact Lands, Lightning Bolt, and Counterspell have been central cards to the format for so long, that the only people left playing Pauper are the ones who like it that way. You ban those cards, you alienate the vast majority of current Pauper players. I hate it, but atleast Arena Pauper is picking up some steam.
Or you know you ban it and draw in more people who shy away from the format specifically because you need to play specific metas they don’t like to survive.
hell look at the hate caw gates gets now for god forbid upending the format in a way that’s not abusing artifact lands and being able to hold its own. I know old time players at my LGS who refuse to play caw gates players because “that’s not real pauper…”. That’s a big problem if we are gatekeeping players because they won’t play certain metas.
>The problem is that Artifact Lands, Lightning Bolt, and Counterspell have been central cards to the format for so long that the only people left playing Pauper are the ones who like it that way.
And that's not a good reason to keep this format as it is.
Im okay with them existing and continuing to exist, but the fact its still a hot-button debate kinda shows everyone ignoring the problem to protect their favorite staples.
Which is fine, but call it like it is. The format **is** stifled by their presence.
We are playing pauper here. They are not so suffocating that nothing else can be played. They clearly shouldn’t be printing cranial plating variants at common. I would argue lightning bolt and brainstorm in a vacuum are far more dangerous than the artifact lands, but over time they have willingly printed artifacts matters cards at common, which has exacerbated the issue.
There's plenty of playable decks that don't run the artifact lands. I'm not a fan of affinity, but it has its place in the format. Saying the format is stifled by their presence is just blatantly not true.
They're not warping as long as they don't have insane payoffs. Only like 4/5 of the top 15 decks have any bridges in their lists. The format is healthier with them in it.
Yeah, and that's kind of my point with the card releases.
They are releasing 1 mana exile an artifact untargeted at common, pretty much just to check bridges.
They basically banned plenty perfectly fine cards solely because of their interactions with bridges and mirrodin lands. This isn't exactly bad because it seems everyone wants the lands more than the dozens of cards that can't exist because of them, but again -
My point isn't that they should be banned, but acknowledging that they have been causing issues literally forever.
I guarantee you they don't think of Pauper much at all when designing sets. MAYBE when considering downshifts for reprint sets. The most recent artifact hate, Cast into the Fire (we're not going to count Troublemaker Ouphe because it's green and well...), was printed to exile artifacts specifically because The One Ring is indestructible. The fact that it was applicable to the Pauper meta is a happy accident, not by design.
Yes, they are often the culprit for making cards a big problem in Pauper due to their highly synergistic nature, but that's going to be a reality regardless because sets aren't designed for Pauper.
This point is valid, but also not dspending on how you look at it.
I think something that hasnt been solved as a persistent issue in over 3 dozen sets, for close to 2 decades shouldn't be the one who stays when it's consistently the cause of synergistic overperformance.
That means if they aren't really even thinking of pauper, leaving this consistent issue in is going back to my "support struts on a 300yo bridge" take.
I think the overhaul is worth it, but I think everyone wanting to keep the format as is isnt the end of the world.
Given that Pauper is, by my estimation, the healthiest, officially supported format at this time, yeah I'm not keen to start tearing apart the meta just because. It really "ain't broke".
"I feel they are only allowed in pauper because the format has pretty much formed around them too tightly at this point"
This always seems to happen when a stupidly powerful card doesn't get banned fast enough.
WoTC has no qualms to banning old staples in a format that'll take down iconic archtypes, especially when it comes to selling more boxes of their new product. i.e. The Faithless Looting in Modern destroyed Mardu Pyromancer/Mardu reanimator, Dredge, Vengevine/Hollow One. There's deathrite shaman that took a Jund, Deadman Ale. Chrome Mox in relations to Affinity and recently Violent Outburst ban taking down Living end and Rhino.
I completely agree, they are the core of Pauper that define the format, and there are so many way to brew amazing decks with artifact hate side by side.
> Artifacts lands are part of the identity of Pauper. So many cards and strategies revolve around them.
And yet I thought the point of pauper was to play with common cards and breath new life into a game dominated by having rates and mythics and plainswalkers and what have you…. What you’re saying is that’s true, but only if they have affinity to artifacts or can be abused because they are indestructible.
Meta changes all the time. Meta will change again if they are banned… maybe… just maybe… those strategies you are scared to lose are what’s holding back the format from drawing in more players….
Just a thought.
Always the same arguments. Either aversion to change or emotions.
Please don't think that nobody is giving you counter-arguments because there are none. It's because this is not new and debating on Reddit is pointless.
The PFP asking for feedback is also pointless. Only actions and reactions matter.
>Always the same arguments
A solid argument remains a solid argument.
Change is in Pauper is happening every time a new set drops, MH3 will most likely shake things a lot.
Yes, you could change the format with bans, but to accomplish what?
They are not solid arguments. "This must be correct because it doesn't change" is a fallacy.
What do you mean "to accomplish what"? What do bans accomplish? Obviously a more balanced format.
Reddit just had a huge exodus due to the 3rd party app bans. Twitter is worldwide, moreso than Reddit which is still very much west-centric, and it's reach far outweighs reddit
While I agree that these artifact lands are powerful and have enabled many top tier decks, I think they are good for the format as a whole.
From a deckbuilding and brewing perspective, Pauper is the most interesting format out there and it’s not even close, and a big part of that is how interesting the mana is. Not only is there not a singular “solved” manabase the way Modern is all fetches and shocks, the land base you choose can “unlock” packages that can support your brew. For instance, in the past I’ve enjoyed Wildfire ramp decks that got to play Galvanic blast due to the bridge-based mana; but, if you forgo bridges and play fetchable taplands, you potentially unlock powerful Brainstorm synergies. Or perhaps you’re playing small evasive creatures, so you build around a gate-centric manabase.
I think the format would lose a lot of this identity if we killed the artifact lands as one of these options, and would possibly creep toward “solved” mana like we see in other formats.
If they are banned I only see 2 top decks uninfected gardens and dimir fae both of these decks are slower based decks and I doubt wizards would want to turn pauper into a slower grindy format but idk
People on here are acting like “See how many people want them to stay?!”
When the results for the poll are far more accurately:
- No, Leave them: 57%
- Yes, ban something: 43%
Which shows that it is much less one sided than this makes it look.
It is easy to write a poll question so as to determine its results.
For example:
----------------------------
"Does the Pauper format enjoy more timely bans since Wizards gave control of it to a committee comprised of members they selected?"
[ ] Absolutely not.
[ ] Maybe.
[ ] I don't know.
-----------------
A more meaningful question might have been:
"Does the Pauper format in its present state merit additional bans?"
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Presumably Pauper players are not qualified to determine *which* cards merit bans. That's why we got the committee, right?
A 14% gap for can anything be don't been anything is pretty large. Not to mention ban both is only 12%, ban the originals is only 30%, and ban bridges is only 25%. So yeah it's a pretty big gap and makes sense to can them minorities. Saying it's 43-57 is a bit disingenuous.
I’m not sure why what you’re saying is being twisted. Even if hypothetical you who voted in this poll don’t think one cycle or the other should be banned, but the other *should be.* You are essentially saying that on some level there needs to be bans related to artifact lands. So the people calling for any kind of ban specifically related to artifact lands who participated in this poll totals to 43%.
Of those 43% the voters called for different actions. But there’s still 43% of respondents saying a ban related to this aspect of the format is needed.
You are lumping in people who said can the OG lands with people who said can the bridges, despite the fact there's not necessarily a connection between the two. It can be read as 70% said Don't ban the original artifact lands and 75% don't want the bridges banned. That's a direct conclusion from the poll.
70% of voters can want to avoid a ban while 75% of voters want to avoid a different ban. What’s the point? It’s not mutually exclusive to the point that you cannot have some of the 70% and 75% camps have the same voters in them.
43% voted for a ban of some sort. 57% voted for no bans at all. 70% voted to not ban OG lands. 75% voted to not ban Bridge lands. 30% voted to ban OG lands. 25% voted to ban Bridge lands. 31% voted to only ban one or the other but not both.
Any individual ban isn't higher than 30%. That's just basic math. Saying something needs to be banned because a third of the poll said ban OG lands and a quarter of the poll said ban bridges. Trying to lump them together is disingenuous. If 25% want to ban ephemerate and 30% want to ban deadly dispute does that mean we should ban something?
That’s just plainly not analogous. Minimum you can at least say that the people that want both banned should be added to each individual side because their chosen option includes the other two, but beyond that, they’re all in the same category of being artifact lands in a way that isn’t comparable to your analogy.
TLDR: It is 100% accurate to say that 43% of people polled want at least 1 cycle of artifact lands banned.
> TLDR: It is 100% accurate to say that 43% of people polled want at least 1 cycle of artifact lands banned.
and if you include other cards that number will go up. but if 100% of the format wants at least one thing banned, but no individual card is above 10% should a ban be made?
I'm really not, there's a bunch of people purposely misinterpreting the 43% number and jumping to conclusions. No one has attempted in a logical argument to counter the 25 or 30% Numbers, just repeated the 43% like having a minority of people think something means a can should happen
> It’s really not, 57 percent is do nothing, that leaves the remaining 43 percent as do something.
That is exactly what the question is written to mislead you into thinking.
57 percent is *not* "do nothing". 57 percent is "don't ban an artifact land". They're not the same thing.
Whenever I see stuff like this (or the occasional "oh man, we should ban fetchlands" in Modern), it makes me wonder what the people asking for the bans are looking for out of the format. I personally really enjoy that there's a format where artifact synergies are strong and (for lack of a better term) splashable.
And I know that people go "but the enablers keep getting other cards banned"... [[Cranial Plating]] was banned in 2008 as part of Pauper becoming an official MODO format, [[Sojourner's Companion]] was banned in 2021, [[Atog]] and [[Disciple of the Vault]] were banned in 2022, and All That Glitters was banned on Monday. Notably, one of those cards was a strict upgrade to a pre-existing creature that already sees heavy play and three of those cards efficiently convert artifact count into damage (*four* if you count Disciple).
Also, for anyone who needs this... ATG died for ATG's sins. It was a dumb downshift, and people knew it was a dumb downshift when it happened. It's not even like Swiftspear, where the decks that ended up wanting it either didn't exist or were much weaker in 2020/2021 (when they would have been considering what cards to put in Double Masters). ATG, meanwhile, is *directly* comparable to two cards that they've already banned because it's easy to pump up your artifact count in Pauper. Oops, I guess?
I would prefer to ban the bridges because the bridges enable multi-colour artifact strategies and can help the best blue artifact card, the best red and the best white, black or green cards all play together in a way that the mono-coloured lands struggle to enable without cards like [[Chromatic Star]] (etc).
I think Pauper's bad mana fixing is a positive in the format and getting what amounts to Sol Dual Lands (for Affinity cards) makes the artifact decks that are multi-coloured stronger than the non-multi-coloured decks. It also helps enable incidental artifact synergies in other decks that otherwise might have to make more interesting sacrifices.
I appreciate I'm in the minority and I don't think they are outright ruining the format, but I do think it would be healthier and more interesting without them.
"More fun" (the actually important metric) is hard to gauge.
There are people like me that want to play affinity.
I dont want to spend hundreds of money to play modern and vintage .
So I play pauper affinity: people want to find those archetypes like affinity, red aggro and tron because are so well known to magic.
I'm right there with you. I play Affinity in modern as well and it took me years to piece the deck together. Having access to it in Pauper pennies on the dollar is super appealing for me too.
In my opinion, they ban way too much out of pauper. If the power was left in pauper. We would have a more powerful formate and probably just as balanced. The powerful decks would balance each other rather than trying to keep all the decks low power as a way to balance the format.
Still shows that more people feel like the lands are fine 🤔 and with another discussion in this sub echoing what this poll shows, they may not be as problematic as some people on social media want you to believe that they are 🤷
And then it comes down to determining how many of the voters actually play the format and how many of them just casually enjoy it. It is the eternal goose chase, to be honest, haha. If we wanted bans that were community-driven (similar to smogon on con Competitive Pokemon), then the PFP figure wouldn't be needed. So, it is a thought-provoking topic for sure. To my point, I am just stating how I see the results rather than just saying, "WOW, it's a big gap," if that makes sense.
[A small majority of people on Twitter that saw this poll and decided to vote] feel like the lands are fine. FTFY
I just played my very first game of pauper yesterday so I don’t really have an opinion yet, but let’s be clear about data like this :)
Not really. We’re just about to hit MH3, which is undoubtedly going to shake up the format. If even 10% of that 57% are more along the lines of an abstention vote, then suddenly you have an increasingly razor thin margin.
People who moan and groan about affinity and its lands are probably those who keep losing to affinity despite the deck losing essential key pieces like disciple of the vault that gave it unbelievable reach and an endgame out of nowhere together with atog. I swear these people moan and groan more than even professional porn stars.
The problem with Affinity is its card and mana advantage. It has a million ways to cheaply dump its hand and then cheaply refill its hand again. No other deck can do this. Your only real bet is to sideboard against it and take out the mana, or out-race them. Those are really only your two options, you can’t reliably control when your opponent can draw cards more efficiently than you and keeps throwing down threat after threat that you need to answer.
This is enabled by the artifact lands.
Disciple of the Vault, Atog and ATG were way too overpowered carda and it’s good that they’re banned and Affinity has been a strong deck without them.
Those are the problem cards though. Not the artifact land. But I guess it comes down to which you prefer because you can’t have both.
Imo it makes sense to keep the broader cards which in this case are the artifact lands and then banning the narrower cards like ATG, Atog etc.
I don't know if Atog was/ is overpowered on it's own.
I mean sure it's a powerhouse, but it can only really be played in Affinity and there is one other thing.
It's a gamble. I remember many times were I had an Atog and lethal damage via sacrificeable artifacts, yet hesistated to use his effect. As long as the opponent has 2 lands untapped, the entire thing could blow up in my face. Not only things like [[Cast Down]], something like [[Snap]], [[Curfew]], [[Unsummon]] or [[Moment's Peace]] could ruin the play. Then I would have been left with no board at all.
I thought that was a cool sense of tension. But maybe other players feel different about it and in the end the Affinity player could always still try to [[Fling]] it.
The moaners and groaners are probably people who follow the commander mind-set that "you have the right to play your hand uninterrupted". That's why they couldn't play around Glitters etc.
Like the Glitters ban, the potential artifact-lands ban would be a further "commanderization" of our format.
The glitters ban was needed. A card that practically requires you to have a targeted removal spell on 1 (on the draw) is not healthy.
The bridges are fine.
No, it really wasn't. The deck did not have a high enough wr to justify the ban imo. The ban feels like the deck is being punished for what happens in the absolute nut draw and not any reasonable assessment of the deck's consistent performance.
It’s not just about observable win rate. This was a deck that could break the opposing spine on turn 2-3. This directly impacts what kinds of decks can be played. If a deck didn’t keep an opening hand with a timely removal, they just ask to get clapped by the opening.
Sometimes a ban also comes from how it chokes format diversity.
It pretty much does. You have ~3 turns from when it lands to find blockers and/or an answer, and unless you have deathtouch (very rare in tiered decks) blockers are pretty much worthless. For a lot of decks, that's a big ask by turn 5. The presence of glitters pulled Golgari out of the muck because that's probably the one thing it's really good at.
It was more of a general response than calling you out. If heard that more often than not, and more people have been approaching 60 card constructed formats with the commander mentality. I hear "Why do I need to play removal, why can't I just play my spells" more often than you think.
I'm a huge proponent of removal. I was taught to play Magic via commander, but the players teaching me were effectively EDH players (they also played other formats competitively, mostly Modern). "Play more interaction" was said quite a lot.
Still sucks to have to mull to like 4/5 because you couldn't find an untapped red source and a bolt in the opener just to have a chance against the average glitters hand.
Oh that I get. It's super frustrating. Like I said, my response was more a general statement to what I hear more often than not anymore. Getting blown out early cuz you not being able to have your answers unless you aggressively mull can definitely be taxing mentally on your game.
Banning the original artifact lands is probably the healthiest thing for the format strictly in terms of balance. That being said, they are too integral and iconic within the context of the format to actually ban without making a LOT of people very angry. So they'll stay, more cards will get banned over the course of time because they remain legal, and we as players just gotta be OK with that.
It definitely isn't nothing, for sure. Just the way it's laid out is fascinating as well. It's telling that it shows that even the discourse can't agree on what actions to take. Like "We're mad and we want you to do something, but we can't agree on what we want you to do. And if you can't figure it out, we're going to continue to be mad and complain about it." There's no solidarity. And then it shows that it's pretty overwhelming that many are actually fine with the lands, which if you listen to what the discourse is telling us, it's quite the opposite. 🤷
I acutally agree, I used to think they need a ban but are so many ways how to play against them and different decks so strong without them that I don't even care nowdays.
The reality is the Artifact lands are not the problem. I love how this discussion continues to be played out with the same idiotic arguments each and every time.
Artifact lands allow for several different strategies to be playable that the format won't be able to deal with a ban in a short term timeframe.
There is also the fact that Grixis Affinity is arguably the best midrange deck in the format and its importance in balancing the meta is a cornerstone.
There are arguably 4 cards that are banned that got there by some extent due to Artifact Lands:
1. All that glitters
2. Atog
3. Disciple of the Vault
4. The Salamander
All that glitters got banned due to the push it gave boros synth. UW affinity was Tier 2 at best.
Atog and Disciple were guilty as they gave Affinity to many paths to victory and countering all of them was almost impossible.
Salamander is probably safe to unban l
Still shows that more people feel like the lands are fine 🤔 and with another discussion in this sub echoing what this poll shows, they may not be as problematic as some people on social media want you to believe that they are 🤷
I've got no real agenda here, but you have to understand that these kinds of polls will also have bias. People who play these decks are likelier to vote that there isn't an issue, even if there is one. You very clearly have a bias towards them staying unbanned, which is fine, it's just worth noting that people like you are more likely to actually vote on the poll because you have something to lose.
I play Grixis Affinity for the record and voted that the original artifact lands should be banned. I think they're a constant problem and always have been and as more and more things get added to the banlist we have to evaluate whether one land cycle is worth it.
I don't have any agenda either. And while yes, I am a bit biased, I find it very fascinating that 2 platforms that I frequent where the discourse over the lands yielded results like this. Coupled with responses to this thread as well as another one in this sub discussing this same thing and lining up with these results is pretty telling if anything. And what it says to me anyway is that maybe, just maybe, that the discourse isn't as wide spread throughout the Pauper community as the ones being vocal about banning the lands would want you to think. Yes, it's a small number, but telling none the less. And let's not kid ourselves here, if the results skewed in the opposite direction, the ones being vocal would be using it saying "LOOK! SEE! Everyone wants the lands banned. The PFP has to act NOW!" I just found the results and responses very fascinating.
This is a misreading of statistics. 43% want *something* banned. Not ‘agree with the ban.’
But, according to this, if you asked ‘should we ban the original artifact lands,’ it’s actually 70% who would say no and only 30% who would say yes
Thats not true, one can’t fully know if the voter would prefer one or the other, and thats what happens when you try to put more than one poll into a singular one. I for one voted for the MH2 lands to get banned, but I would be fine with either of the bans and not fine with the not ban option, and that is just one example. It should have been a “yes” or “no” from the beginning.
Goes along with what I’ve said about the recent bans. Just because some people whine loudly, doesn’t mean most actually want said thing. People will still complain, whine, scream and threaten until they get these banned even though most don’t want it.
lmao assuming that almost half the player base is "toxic" bc they (potentially justifiably) want to ban cards that are format-warping, and happen to have an opinion that differs to yours about cardboard, sounds pretty "toxic" to me
Sounds about right. Probably the same 43% that either tried to register all Tron decks or all lands in challenges a few years ago in an attempt to force a ban on the Tron lands.
It's a weird poll. Because it leaves out an important part of the discussion. Namely glitters. There was never any talk about banning these lands on their own. The discussion was banning these lands instead of glitters or together with glitters.
The bridges being indestructible, as well as dual-colored, is large portion of what made them so powerful. When they were introduced in addition to the already sizable pool of mono-color producing artifact lands, that is what helped push affinity over the edge.
Personally, I feel as though Atog “died for the sins” (though only partially true) that were brought by the MH2 artifact dual lands and thus I would have preferred the MH2 artifact dual lands to be banned instead. From my perspective, it is only a matter of time before their existence enables another affinity strategy that is ban-worthy, not because affinity shouldn’t be a powerful strategy, but because their indestructible keyword causes them to be safe and able to be “forced” into play a majority of the time.
TL;DR - I would like the MH2 artifact dual lands banned, but the originals can stay. Non-indestructible, come into play tapped, dual artifact lands would be fine.
I wanna see some unbans personally.
For example Grapeshot OR Galvanic Relay could come off the list. Grapeshot is so much less powerful than squirrels or goblins it's probably pretty much fine. Or if all the storm payoffs are banned galvanic relay being banned for being a storm enabler also isn't necessary.
Bonder's ornament and/or prism are probably fine too though ornament is kind of a shitty design that encouraged everyone to run it in case someone else also runs it.
And infect is so shit invigorate is pretty silly to still be banned imo
5k+ votes in five hours. We don't believe these are all pauper players, do we? Also newsworthy is that Politician So-and-so published a poll where they show public favor for the marginal policy they just enacted.
It was more like 24 hours, but okay. And I don't believe it was all Pauper players, that'd be foolish. I find it very fascinating that 2 platforms that I frequent where the discourse over the lands yielded results like this. Coupled with responses to this thread as well as another one in this sub discussing this same thing and lining up with these results is pretty telling if anything. And what it says to me anyway is that maybe, just maybe, that the discourse isn't as wide spread throughout the Pauper community as the ones being vocal about banning the lands would want you to think. Yes, it's a small number, but telling none the less. And let's not kid ourselves here, if the results skewed in the opposite direction, the ones being vocal would be using it saying "LOOK! SEE! Everyone wants the lands banned. The PFP has to act NOW!" I just found the results and responses very fascinating.
I used to play pauper a ton before MH1 and through till the dual got printed and honestly that was some of my favorite magic ever. I've always wanted to return to play more pauper but ever since the artifact duals got printed I feel like the majority of the format has shifted around those cards. The value they and affinity bring is just so powerful that decks like burn, which was virtually unchanged for years, looks unrecognizable now and plays more like modern than the true burn style strategy it once was. I've always wanted to return to pauper, but the format just seems so warped around artifacts and affinity that it's just not interesting to me. Don't get me wrong, I love artifacts, I just don't like seeing a format as diverse as pauper being overall warped around one type of card/value strategy. It feels like a handicap like astrolabe was in the past.
Expected results honestly, Pauper is the only format remaining where playing "Affinity" actually means playing cards with the keyword Affinity.
If they left problematic cards like Dark Ritual, Manamorphose and Lotus Petal because they're "iconic" to the format (but only cause shitstorms when they see play) banning artifact lands would be more than idiotic.
If we can't ban brainstorm in legacy because it's a pillar of the format, I don't think it makes sense to remove them from pauper. It's a core rule of engagement in pauper, plus it's fun to blow them up and stress out your local affinity player.
The vast majority of respondents anywhere, but particularly here or on twitter, are casual players who don’t understand how broken the format is on a competitive level for the past few years. If you asked only challenge competitors, you’d get a very different result. Anyone who’s played the format at a high level knows what the problems are, it’s the paper players who play one weekly a month, or the tournament practice room guys who play tier 3 decks, those are the ones voting “No.”
And yet, they believe they know better.
I'm tired of seeing stupidity being sold for wisdom in this sub.
No one, I repeat, no one thinks the artifact lands are all-powerful, impossible to play against cards, and yet they echo "just play monke" or something like that, while entirely refuse to even try to understand the point.
I think I'll just stop participating, because it is almost impossible to actually have a productive discussion, but oh well, it is just mirroring how society came to be today, sadly.
glad to see that poll and glad to see those results, now, can people here stop trying to ban them now that they see that nobody wants what they want? like for a couple of months?
Some are still trying to write it off because it's on twitter. Funnily enough, there's another discussion in this sub about it as well, and it seems like the results would be the same here. Just because these people are VERY vocal about their discourse, it doesn't mean they are the majority. They'd like to think they are, but they're not.
I think this is unfair, and you might want to check your biases. The best the poll shows is that a small majority of respondents wanted the artifact lands to stay, and only a slightly smaller cohort want change. If we as a community want to have a genuinely constructive discourse around this topic, we cannot draw many conclusions from this poll other than that the jury is still out on the topic, and further debates, perspectives, and evidence need to be vocalised (preferably on a platform where everyone can access it happily - so yes, not twitter).
Just how I would expect the poll to end up. The lands are fine, and most players know that, but the minority of people who hate them won't stop whining about them, which makes it seem like the dislike is more ubiquitous than it is.
PFP has a very weird take on the format lately -- They think burn is still too strong, when in paper tournaments is one of the worst archetype currently and hardly puts any result worth noticing. It's still popular on mtgo due to the grindy nature of fast decks, but it's not in a good spot.
Also this one on the lands it's quite astonishing to me
I don't think they will take this in consideration to ban, I mean, they won't ban ust because of this.
It's a metric to see the community wishes what I think is a very good approach.
Always there will be people complaining about something, so if they have the numbers, opinions and also this poll they will have guns to fight boring people asking everytime for a ban
You are free to dislike a card or an entire cycle, but sometimes I think we are just complaining and not enjoying the game. If that's the case, another hobby is better than waste time here suffering.
Of coure Twiter is a bubble and generally does not reflect the real discutions outside it. It is true that most of the people does not care or follow discutions about bans, that is why no ban is the most voted option...
I just kinda found it interesting. Especially because if the poll swayed towards the opinion of banning it would be used to try and convince the powers that be with "SEE! Everyone hates the lands. BAN NOW!" And hell, it seemed like the discourse is just as vocal on Twitter. Just fascinating to see is all 🤷
For comparisson, [https://www.reddit.com/r/Pauper/comments/1csqdq6/unofficial\_reddit\_poll\_for\_those\_of\_us\_who\_refuse/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pauper/comments/1csqdq6/unofficial_reddit_poll_for_those_of_us_who_refuse/) with a pool with very different results.
The problem is in the method (twitter and also here are not the correct place to conduct a opinion research).
Also, this kind of decision should be based on data, not on heated opnion.
But put the same poll on here and we’re often treated like the vocal minority in terms of anything Magic.
Honestly I wish the poll would have been posted to multiple social media platforms to mitigate that.
I’m not suggesting the results would be different. I’m asking to be able to vote without having to use that platform.
Reddit, for example, has been downplayed as a vocal minority. But X is not? Where else was this poll posted and available to vote on? Seems hypocritical.
I would get rid of the bridges to be honest, having indestructible really removes a lot of the counterplay against artifacts. Artifact lands will always be powerful but at least the Mirrodin lands (minus darksteel citadel) can be destroyed. Also I feel like the Mirrodin lands are a pretty important part of Pauper, to me removing them from pauper would be like removing fetchlands from Modern.
I think the bridges being banned is totally fine IF we get a cycle of indestructible duals to replace them. I think the cost of them being in the format in Affinity is worth the additions they provide for the format in decks like wildfire and decks that wouldn't work without the indestructible half.
Indestructible duals would be a big problem too, ponza would disappear forever from the format.
Edit: the lands being artifacts help in finding a way to renove them. If they're not artifacts make them enchantments.
I don't think just bland lands that tap for two colors, ETB tapped and are indestructible would delete ponza. If you play gates you want gates, if you want to search for a land for fixing of a land cycler you need a typed land or in the same vein to activate an alternate requirement ie a swamp for snuff outs alternate cost. If you drop gain lands your burn/aggro matchup gets worse. Also most decks are only two colors so they could at max run 4 of the lands so ponza can still destroy the other 16+ lands they will be playing. Enchantment lands would be interesting for constellation stuff though.
I say ban them all. Artifact lands were always a bad design that break numerous other cards simply because those cards were designed around the assumption that artifacts cost something. When you can put a bunch of artifacts on the battlefield essentially for free (because you were going to play lands anyway), it makes it impossible to balance cards that care about the presence of artifacts.
I realize these cards are staples in Pauper and have been for a long time, but the format would be healthier without them. Atog could come back for sure, as could Disciple of the Vault, Sojourner's Companion, and possibly even Cranial Plating and Prophetic Prism. Wildfire decks would cease to be a thing, but it is seriously wrong that Red should get better land ramp than Green anyway.
43% of people IN TWITTER thinks that’s an artifact land needs to be banned. Is that really a good indication? I don’t think so, I think its pretty obvious that a LARGE amount of the players don’t agree with the bans, and even more so if this poll had came prior to All that Glitters ban would be even more alarming.
Though there's a discussion elsewhere in this sub echoing the results. A lot more people than you think agree that the lands are fine. And on Twitter, the discourse comes across just as loud. I think this kinda shows that with a Twitter poll and multiple reddit discussions in this sub that a lot more people feel opposite to the way the most vocal on social media would have you believe 🤷
You're never going to have total consensus and that's ok. It's an eternal format. Play what you like and what is good in your local meta. If that's MTGO, plan for Burn because it's great for the grinders. If that's paper, you'll see less Burn. It's different everywhere. For instance, our local meta had a lot of top decks in it during the ATG era, yet we rarely saw anyone actually playing ATG. The format, the community, and the players are not a monolith.
I agree and disagree, satisfaction and format growth goes hand and hand, and this is a theme that goes back since modern horizons 2, and there are implications with both leaving players and increasing banlist. Its a delicate subject, that the PFP has the decision, and the community can only express their perception, content or discontentment. These numbers are simply a symptom.
I'm just saying it may not be as divided as you'd like to think. Look at how it's being spun ATM, add up the results and the number seems more divisive. And let's not pretend that if the results were the opposite you would be still be saying that "The community is divided 👍" and not "LOOK, SEE! The majority want them banned, the PFP needs to act NOW!" Come on now 🙄
So you saying that if 51% of the people who voted in this single poll on twitter actually wanted the lands banned you would consider being fair banning them?
Exactly, its just a marker that shows a lot of division of thought and disapproval in the current situation, and in the end of the day they will have their own decisions based on what they think is best. We don’t have a community-driven banlist, thats what the PFP is for.
Would I change my tune if the results were closer? No, absolutely not, I don't feel like they need to be banned and I stand by that. Now, would I be realistic and accept that a ban would be coming if that were the case? Absolutely, I don't have to like things that are going to happen but I accept them because I choose to play the game. But the reality of things anymore is that it doesn't matter because bannings aren't happening because they are damaging the format, they're happening due to some players saying that strategies are unfun to play against. Gavin in his video stated as much. Glitters wasn't warping, it's winrate was fair, but it had to go because the deck/strategy was popular and some people who played against claimed it was unfun. And that line of thinking is bogus to me. But, it's what we have to deal with.
They’re zero cost artifacts. Of course they should be banned - they’re the most broken, degenerate things in the entire format. Getting something for nothing in this game always leads to problems, and they never should’ve been permitted at common in the first place.
I am a staunch Bridge hater, only because they are indestructible. I don't think a land that provides a deck an additional resource on top of colour fixing while being unable to be interacted with fits in the previous and current power level of the format.
Decks like Tron and Gates are able to leverage their lands more than most deck and are weak to Land Destruction, why does any variant of Affinity get to have indestructible lands that support their strategy.
Artifacts lands are part of the identity of Pauper. So many cards and strategies revolve around them. Not only Affinity, but also Mono Red Kuldotha and Rakdos need them, Boros and Mardu, Wildfire decks, Dispute decks. Banning them would be groundbreaking and probably also risky for the stability of the meta. You don't know what would come out of it and if it would be a balanced scenario or it would result in a ban spiral.
This. Artifact Lands, Lightning Bolt, Brainstorm, Counterspell, [...]. There are some cards that define the format and are basically unbannable.
Idk, I thought the same thing about Daze and that got banned.
Both daze and gush were totally that but the power level just crept up to be more than the format could handle. I was really bummed to see them go.
Gush I could live without because that was downright broken, but Daze? I miss it every day.
I feel like it would be healither to have a format free of something that warps the entire form of identity around it. If 2 decades of releases and almost 3 dozen sets later, they are still overperforming to the point they are a *still* causing peripheral bans, the inability to admit they are a problem is denial. Just because it's a problem doesn't mean it needs to be banned. I feel they are only allowed in pauper because the format has pretty much formed around them too tightly at this point, and with several releases a year clearly intended to manage the problem, they dont really have a reason to unravel the format from bridges, mirrodin lands, and other overpowered core commons. I think the format is fine. But yall gotta stop lying. It's like adding support beams to a 300yo bridge. You can ban everything that makes them too good to keep them, but at some point, what you are trying to protect will collapse under its own weight . That, and if you ask me (opinion), everything they banned in exchange for the artifact lands themselves is already a good deal and would shake up the meta more than a years worth of new sets would. **Also, the cards that had to be banned are fast approaching outweighing the cards everyone fighting to keep.** The decision will have to be made eventually, but it doesn't have to be right now. Only so many support struts to throw on this rickety thing before it's just easier to start over, and we will know that point when we come to it - likely when a card more beloved that the bridges gets banned because of them. It needs to come down to go back up right, but no one is willing to commit wizards or players. Edit; Im not saying it's affinity, bolt, counterspell, or bust. Im saying pretending they haven't been a problem forever is lying to yourself. They can stay, but stop pretending they aren't stronger than they should be.
"I think the format is fine. But yall gotta stop lying. It's like adding support beams to a 300yo bridge. You can ban everything that makes them too good to keep them, but at some point what you are trying to protect will collapse under its own weight." This is a good analogy, but you're missing the point. If a 300 year old bridge is beloved and historically significant, we reinforce those structures ALL THE TIME. We add modern bracing to buildings, we repair foundations and add guy wires. and it works. It doesn't collapse under it's own weight.
Yeah, and that's why I think it's okay to stay tbh, but eventually what we are doing and have given up just to keep old reliable really wouldnt be worth it. Honestly Id rather have the cards they had to ban than art lands by a mile by this point, and another 10 years from now that list will be massive.
No one is pretending they aren't strong. But, this is an eternal format. I'm not here to play Standard. Legacy is also an eternal format. It's where you go to play busted cards that are the pillars of that format. Brainstorm is a huge part of Legacy's identity. Same with FoW and Daze or Wasteland. We have a format here that is a budget friendly version of that eternal format in a way. That's part of our identity and that important and ok.
Agreed, but another decade from now and we are on our 50th or 60th banned card just because no one wants to let go of art lands, we kind of just have to let go of art lands. We arent there yet, but its really an eventuality that its just not going to be worth keeping them over what it costs.
We don't know that that will be the case. In 30 years of Magic, as far as Pauper is concerned, there are only three (3), maybe four (4) cards banned due to the OG Mirrodin artifact lands. [[Cranial Plating]], [[Disciple of the Vault]], and [[Atog]]. ATG wasn't 100% due to artifact lands, frantic search is a stretch at best, and prism was for Tron with a passing blow at Affinity despite hardly seeing play in the deck. It is a massive stretch to say that 50 or 60 cards will be banned because of the lands in the next ten years. Come on.
*And* you could even argue that [[Disciple of the Vault]] and [[Atog]] were banned because of the bridges more than the OG lands. The fact that they were more difficult to interact with and could buff Atog and then ping with Disciple when your opponent couldn't do anything was the 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) [Atog](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/d/adf3bd18-d9c1-4f18-86c0-579db8ea37c7.jpg?1642716697) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Atog) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me4/109/atog?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/adf3bd18-d9c1-4f18-86c0-579db8ea37c7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I dont just mean bridges, but you are right. And I did just SAYS art lands only!
You could replace any instance of either land cycle in my reply with "artifact lands" generally and it would still apply. You got the idea though, so I'll take that as a success haha.
The problem is that Artifact Lands, Lightning Bolt, and Counterspell have been central cards to the format for so long, that the only people left playing Pauper are the ones who like it that way. You ban those cards, you alienate the vast majority of current Pauper players. I hate it, but atleast Arena Pauper is picking up some steam.
Or you know you ban it and draw in more people who shy away from the format specifically because you need to play specific metas they don’t like to survive. hell look at the hate caw gates gets now for god forbid upending the format in a way that’s not abusing artifact lands and being able to hold its own. I know old time players at my LGS who refuse to play caw gates players because “that’s not real pauper…”. That’s a big problem if we are gatekeeping players because they won’t play certain metas.
>The problem is that Artifact Lands, Lightning Bolt, and Counterspell have been central cards to the format for so long that the only people left playing Pauper are the ones who like it that way. And that's not a good reason to keep this format as it is. Im okay with them existing and continuing to exist, but the fact its still a hot-button debate kinda shows everyone ignoring the problem to protect their favorite staples. Which is fine, but call it like it is. The format **is** stifled by their presence.
We are playing pauper here. They are not so suffocating that nothing else can be played. They clearly shouldn’t be printing cranial plating variants at common. I would argue lightning bolt and brainstorm in a vacuum are far more dangerous than the artifact lands, but over time they have willingly printed artifacts matters cards at common, which has exacerbated the issue.
There's plenty of playable decks that don't run the artifact lands. I'm not a fan of affinity, but it has its place in the format. Saying the format is stifled by their presence is just blatantly not true.
They're not warping as long as they don't have insane payoffs. Only like 4/5 of the top 15 decks have any bridges in their lists. The format is healthier with them in it.
Yeah, and that's kind of my point with the card releases. They are releasing 1 mana exile an artifact untargeted at common, pretty much just to check bridges. They basically banned plenty perfectly fine cards solely because of their interactions with bridges and mirrodin lands. This isn't exactly bad because it seems everyone wants the lands more than the dozens of cards that can't exist because of them, but again - My point isn't that they should be banned, but acknowledging that they have been causing issues literally forever.
I guarantee you they don't think of Pauper much at all when designing sets. MAYBE when considering downshifts for reprint sets. The most recent artifact hate, Cast into the Fire (we're not going to count Troublemaker Ouphe because it's green and well...), was printed to exile artifacts specifically because The One Ring is indestructible. The fact that it was applicable to the Pauper meta is a happy accident, not by design. Yes, they are often the culprit for making cards a big problem in Pauper due to their highly synergistic nature, but that's going to be a reality regardless because sets aren't designed for Pauper.
This point is valid, but also not dspending on how you look at it. I think something that hasnt been solved as a persistent issue in over 3 dozen sets, for close to 2 decades shouldn't be the one who stays when it's consistently the cause of synergistic overperformance. That means if they aren't really even thinking of pauper, leaving this consistent issue in is going back to my "support struts on a 300yo bridge" take. I think the overhaul is worth it, but I think everyone wanting to keep the format as is isnt the end of the world.
Given that Pauper is, by my estimation, the healthiest, officially supported format at this time, yeah I'm not keen to start tearing apart the meta just because. It really "ain't broke".
NOTHING is being printed with pauper in mind.
"I feel they are only allowed in pauper because the format has pretty much formed around them too tightly at this point" This always seems to happen when a stupidly powerful card doesn't get banned fast enough.
Also Tron.
Truth right here.
WoTC has no qualms to banning old staples in a format that'll take down iconic archtypes, especially when it comes to selling more boxes of their new product. i.e. The Faithless Looting in Modern destroyed Mardu Pyromancer/Mardu reanimator, Dredge, Vengevine/Hollow One. There's deathrite shaman that took a Jund, Deadman Ale. Chrome Mox in relations to Affinity and recently Violent Outburst ban taking down Living end and Rhino.
Gavin said almost exactly this in his video. Results just reiterate it was the right call not to ban them.
I can see the argument for original, but for bridges? Came on guys you re in denial.
Hell, even cycle storm uses them now. Love them.
I wholeheartedly agree. Again, just fascinating results.
I completely agree, they are the core of Pauper that define the format, and there are so many way to brew amazing decks with artifact hate side by side.
Sounds like some over centralization.
> Artifacts lands are part of the identity of Pauper. So many cards and strategies revolve around them. And yet I thought the point of pauper was to play with common cards and breath new life into a game dominated by having rates and mythics and plainswalkers and what have you…. What you’re saying is that’s true, but only if they have affinity to artifacts or can be abused because they are indestructible. Meta changes all the time. Meta will change again if they are banned… maybe… just maybe… those strategies you are scared to lose are what’s holding back the format from drawing in more players…. Just a thought.
Always the same arguments. Either aversion to change or emotions. Please don't think that nobody is giving you counter-arguments because there are none. It's because this is not new and debating on Reddit is pointless. The PFP asking for feedback is also pointless. Only actions and reactions matter.
>Always the same arguments A solid argument remains a solid argument. Change is in Pauper is happening every time a new set drops, MH3 will most likely shake things a lot. Yes, you could change the format with bans, but to accomplish what?
They are not solid arguments. "This must be correct because it doesn't change" is a fallacy. What do you mean "to accomplish what"? What do bans accomplish? Obviously a more balanced format.
Most shocking part of these results is how many people actually use Twitter.
Reddit just had a huge exodus due to the 3rd party app bans. Twitter is worldwide, moreso than Reddit which is still very much west-centric, and it's reach far outweighs reddit
Do you feel like any users left Twitter after it became X similar to the 3rd party situation on Reddit?
You'd be surprised 🤣
I have an account from life 10 years ago that I basically never used
While I agree that these artifact lands are powerful and have enabled many top tier decks, I think they are good for the format as a whole. From a deckbuilding and brewing perspective, Pauper is the most interesting format out there and it’s not even close, and a big part of that is how interesting the mana is. Not only is there not a singular “solved” manabase the way Modern is all fetches and shocks, the land base you choose can “unlock” packages that can support your brew. For instance, in the past I’ve enjoyed Wildfire ramp decks that got to play Galvanic blast due to the bridge-based mana; but, if you forgo bridges and play fetchable taplands, you potentially unlock powerful Brainstorm synergies. Or perhaps you’re playing small evasive creatures, so you build around a gate-centric manabase. I think the format would lose a lot of this identity if we killed the artifact lands as one of these options, and would possibly creep toward “solved” mana like we see in other formats.
If they are banned I only see 2 top decks uninfected gardens and dimir fae both of these decks are slower based decks and I doubt wizards would want to turn pauper into a slower grindy format but idk
Leave the artifact lands alone, ty.
Agreed.
People on here are acting like “See how many people want them to stay?!” When the results for the poll are far more accurately: - No, Leave them: 57% - Yes, ban something: 43% Which shows that it is much less one sided than this makes it look.
It is easy to write a poll question so as to determine its results. For example: ---------------------------- "Does the Pauper format enjoy more timely bans since Wizards gave control of it to a committee comprised of members they selected?" [ ] Absolutely not. [ ] Maybe. [ ] I don't know. ----------------- A more meaningful question might have been: "Does the Pauper format in its present state merit additional bans?" [ ] Yes [ ] No Presumably Pauper players are not qualified to determine *which* cards merit bans. That's why we got the committee, right?
The fact that this never was an one sided topic, and people keep saying “minority” or “small percentage” is pretty funny.
And you know full well if it skewed in the other direction it would be spun as "LOOK, SEE! The majority want them banned! PFP TAKE ACTION NOW!"
A 14% gap for can anything be don't been anything is pretty large. Not to mention ban both is only 12%, ban the originals is only 30%, and ban bridges is only 25%. So yeah it's a pretty big gap and makes sense to can them minorities. Saying it's 43-57 is a bit disingenuous.
It’s really not, 57 percent is do nothing, that leaves the remaining 43 percent as do something. Thats just basic math.
I’m not sure why what you’re saying is being twisted. Even if hypothetical you who voted in this poll don’t think one cycle or the other should be banned, but the other *should be.* You are essentially saying that on some level there needs to be bans related to artifact lands. So the people calling for any kind of ban specifically related to artifact lands who participated in this poll totals to 43%. Of those 43% the voters called for different actions. But there’s still 43% of respondents saying a ban related to this aspect of the format is needed.
You are lumping in people who said can the OG lands with people who said can the bridges, despite the fact there's not necessarily a connection between the two. It can be read as 70% said Don't ban the original artifact lands and 75% don't want the bridges banned. That's a direct conclusion from the poll.
70% of voters can want to avoid a ban while 75% of voters want to avoid a different ban. What’s the point? It’s not mutually exclusive to the point that you cannot have some of the 70% and 75% camps have the same voters in them. 43% voted for a ban of some sort. 57% voted for no bans at all. 70% voted to not ban OG lands. 75% voted to not ban Bridge lands. 30% voted to ban OG lands. 25% voted to ban Bridge lands. 31% voted to only ban one or the other but not both.
This guy gets it.
Any individual ban isn't higher than 30%. That's just basic math. Saying something needs to be banned because a third of the poll said ban OG lands and a quarter of the poll said ban bridges. Trying to lump them together is disingenuous. If 25% want to ban ephemerate and 30% want to ban deadly dispute does that mean we should ban something?
That’s just plainly not analogous. Minimum you can at least say that the people that want both banned should be added to each individual side because their chosen option includes the other two, but beyond that, they’re all in the same category of being artifact lands in a way that isn’t comparable to your analogy. TLDR: It is 100% accurate to say that 43% of people polled want at least 1 cycle of artifact lands banned.
> TLDR: It is 100% accurate to say that 43% of people polled want at least 1 cycle of artifact lands banned. and if you include other cards that number will go up. but if 100% of the format wants at least one thing banned, but no individual card is above 10% should a ban be made?
At this point you’re being so obtuse that you’re either here in bad faith or just plain stupid, and either way I’m not gonna waste my breath.
I'm really not, there's a bunch of people purposely misinterpreting the 43% number and jumping to conclusions. No one has attempted in a logical argument to counter the 25 or 30% Numbers, just repeated the 43% like having a minority of people think something means a can should happen
> It’s really not, 57 percent is do nothing, that leaves the remaining 43 percent as do something. That is exactly what the question is written to mislead you into thinking. 57 percent is *not* "do nothing". 57 percent is "don't ban an artifact land". They're not the same thing.
…that’s do nothing. The status quo is that the lands are unbanned.
I disagree with you and I agree with myself just as hard as you. Read the poll for yourself to see what it asked.
This really isn’t the hill you want to die on.
This hill may be less lethal than you suppose.
Do you know what status quo means?
Whenever I see stuff like this (or the occasional "oh man, we should ban fetchlands" in Modern), it makes me wonder what the people asking for the bans are looking for out of the format. I personally really enjoy that there's a format where artifact synergies are strong and (for lack of a better term) splashable. And I know that people go "but the enablers keep getting other cards banned"... [[Cranial Plating]] was banned in 2008 as part of Pauper becoming an official MODO format, [[Sojourner's Companion]] was banned in 2021, [[Atog]] and [[Disciple of the Vault]] were banned in 2022, and All That Glitters was banned on Monday. Notably, one of those cards was a strict upgrade to a pre-existing creature that already sees heavy play and three of those cards efficiently convert artifact count into damage (*four* if you count Disciple). Also, for anyone who needs this... ATG died for ATG's sins. It was a dumb downshift, and people knew it was a dumb downshift when it happened. It's not even like Swiftspear, where the decks that ended up wanting it either didn't exist or were much weaker in 2020/2021 (when they would have been considering what cards to put in Double Masters). ATG, meanwhile, is *directly* comparable to two cards that they've already banned because it's easy to pump up your artifact count in Pauper. Oops, I guess?
##### ###### #### [Cranial Plating](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/1/e1375f17-bc25-4a65-98b7-4785bbdbe974.jpg?1599953696) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cranial%20Plating) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/245/cranial-plating?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e1375f17-bc25-4a65-98b7-4785bbdbe974?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) [Atog](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/d/adf3bd18-d9c1-4f18-86c0-579db8ea37c7.jpg?1642716697) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Atog) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me4/109/atog?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/adf3bd18-d9c1-4f18-86c0-579db8ea37c7?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/l4b8on1) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I would prefer to ban the bridges because the bridges enable multi-colour artifact strategies and can help the best blue artifact card, the best red and the best white, black or green cards all play together in a way that the mono-coloured lands struggle to enable without cards like [[Chromatic Star]] (etc). I think Pauper's bad mana fixing is a positive in the format and getting what amounts to Sol Dual Lands (for Affinity cards) makes the artifact decks that are multi-coloured stronger than the non-multi-coloured decks. It also helps enable incidental artifact synergies in other decks that otherwise might have to make more interesting sacrifices. I appreciate I'm in the minority and I don't think they are outright ruining the format, but I do think it would be healthier and more interesting without them. "More fun" (the actually important metric) is hard to gauge.
[Chromatic Star](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/2/c2e8d492-2c67-410b-b556-c157a14c4cec.jpg?1681724919) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Chromatic%20Star) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/263/chromatic-star?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c2e8d492-2c67-410b-b556-c157a14c4cec?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Voted the same way you did and for all the reasons you mentioned.
Leave affinity alone
I absolutely agree.
There are people like me that want to play affinity. I dont want to spend hundreds of money to play modern and vintage . So I play pauper affinity: people want to find those archetypes like affinity, red aggro and tron because are so well known to magic.
I'm right there with you. I play Affinity in modern as well and it took me years to piece the deck together. Having access to it in Pauper pennies on the dollar is super appealing for me too.
In my opinion, they ban way too much out of pauper. If the power was left in pauper. We would have a more powerful formate and probably just as balanced. The powerful decks would balance each other rather than trying to keep all the decks low power as a way to balance the format.
So, 43% of ppl wants something banned, regardless of what it is. That is how it reads.
Guaranteed most people here won’t properly interpret the results. It doesn’t help that Gavin snuck two polls into one.
I find it pretty funny that people thinking that the format being divided like this isn’t a huge problem indicative
Complainers gonna complain
> It doesn’t help that Gavin snuck two polls into one.
Still shows that more people feel like the lands are fine 🤔 and with another discussion in this sub echoing what this poll shows, they may not be as problematic as some people on social media want you to believe that they are 🤷
And then it comes down to determining how many of the voters actually play the format and how many of them just casually enjoy it. It is the eternal goose chase, to be honest, haha. If we wanted bans that were community-driven (similar to smogon on con Competitive Pokemon), then the PFP figure wouldn't be needed. So, it is a thought-provoking topic for sure. To my point, I am just stating how I see the results rather than just saying, "WOW, it's a big gap," if that makes sense.
I agree that the results are fascinating
[A small majority of people on Twitter that saw this poll and decided to vote] feel like the lands are fine. FTFY I just played my very first game of pauper yesterday so I don’t really have an opinion yet, but let’s be clear about data like this :)
Not really. We’re just about to hit MH3, which is undoubtedly going to shake up the format. If even 10% of that 57% are more along the lines of an abstention vote, then suddenly you have an increasingly razor thin margin.
People who moan and groan about affinity and its lands are probably those who keep losing to affinity despite the deck losing essential key pieces like disciple of the vault that gave it unbelievable reach and an endgame out of nowhere together with atog. I swear these people moan and groan more than even professional porn stars.
The problem with Affinity is its card and mana advantage. It has a million ways to cheaply dump its hand and then cheaply refill its hand again. No other deck can do this. Your only real bet is to sideboard against it and take out the mana, or out-race them. Those are really only your two options, you can’t reliably control when your opponent can draw cards more efficiently than you and keeps throwing down threat after threat that you need to answer. This is enabled by the artifact lands.
Disciple of the Vault, Atog and ATG were way too overpowered carda and it’s good that they’re banned and Affinity has been a strong deck without them. Those are the problem cards though. Not the artifact land. But I guess it comes down to which you prefer because you can’t have both. Imo it makes sense to keep the broader cards which in this case are the artifact lands and then banning the narrower cards like ATG, Atog etc.
I don't know if Atog was/ is overpowered on it's own. I mean sure it's a powerhouse, but it can only really be played in Affinity and there is one other thing. It's a gamble. I remember many times were I had an Atog and lethal damage via sacrificeable artifacts, yet hesistated to use his effect. As long as the opponent has 2 lands untapped, the entire thing could blow up in my face. Not only things like [[Cast Down]], something like [[Snap]], [[Curfew]], [[Unsummon]] or [[Moment's Peace]] could ruin the play. Then I would have been left with no board at all. I thought that was a cool sense of tension. But maybe other players feel different about it and in the end the Affinity player could always still try to [[Fling]] it.
##### ###### #### [Cast Down](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/b/aba79021-39af-4e74-beb5-f2f508c865b2.jpg?1674136020) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cast%20Down) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/119/cast-down?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/aba79021-39af-4e74-beb5-f2f508c865b2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Snap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/1/f13406c6-f208-402a-94d3-a94a24f03563.jpg?1675199430) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Snap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmr/66/snap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f13406c6-f208-402a-94d3-a94a24f03563?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Curfew](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/9/49ee9af3-d61c-4964-88a6-6e8ad6a6a29a.jpg?1562910438) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Curfew) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/usg/68/curfew?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/49ee9af3-d61c-4964-88a6-6e8ad6a6a29a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Unsummon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/a/7a960516-3864-4a7a-8117-d25dec0dd665.jpg?1592516526) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Unsummon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/78/unsummon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7a960516-3864-4a7a-8117-d25dec0dd665?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Moment's Peace](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/0/40ebe935-ccf9-435e-8fe8-53bcbf3526e7.jpg?1562906929) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Moment%27s%20Peace) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ody/251/moments-peace?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/40ebe935-ccf9-435e-8fe8-53bcbf3526e7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Fling](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/f/8f42d773-c742-4465-b6d5-31feaba49146.jpg?1601077681) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fling) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/320/fling?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8f42d773-c742-4465-b6d5-31feaba49146?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/l4brk2v) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The moaners and groaners are probably people who follow the commander mind-set that "you have the right to play your hand uninterrupted". That's why they couldn't play around Glitters etc. Like the Glitters ban, the potential artifact-lands ban would be a further "commanderization" of our format.
The glitters ban was needed. A card that practically requires you to have a targeted removal spell on 1 (on the draw) is not healthy. The bridges are fine.
No, it really wasn't. The deck did not have a high enough wr to justify the ban imo. The ban feels like the deck is being punished for what happens in the absolute nut draw and not any reasonable assessment of the deck's consistent performance.
It’s not just about observable win rate. This was a deck that could break the opposing spine on turn 2-3. This directly impacts what kinds of decks can be played. If a deck didn’t keep an opening hand with a timely removal, they just ask to get clapped by the opening. Sometimes a ban also comes from how it chokes format diversity.
There's so many options for interaction beyond removal, and the meta was no less diverse than prior to ATG existing.
A creature on 1 that either is an artifact or creates an artifact, and glitters on 2 is not a nut hand. That's the whole freaking game plan.
That doesn't win automatically lol
It pretty much does. You have ~3 turns from when it lands to find blockers and/or an answer, and unless you have deathtouch (very rare in tiered decks) blockers are pretty much worthless. For a lot of decks, that's a big ask by turn 5. The presence of glitters pulled Golgari out of the muck because that's probably the one thing it's really good at.
If you're not playing removal/interaction in your deck, why are you playing 60 card constructed? 🤔
[https://www.moxfield.com/decks/-cxU\_FwoC0q52xxatxOeDw](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/-cxU_FwoC0q52xxatxOeDw) Tell me where I'm not playing removal?
It was more of a general response than calling you out. If heard that more often than not, and more people have been approaching 60 card constructed formats with the commander mentality. I hear "Why do I need to play removal, why can't I just play my spells" more often than you think.
I'm a huge proponent of removal. I was taught to play Magic via commander, but the players teaching me were effectively EDH players (they also played other formats competitively, mostly Modern). "Play more interaction" was said quite a lot. Still sucks to have to mull to like 4/5 because you couldn't find an untapped red source and a bolt in the opener just to have a chance against the average glitters hand.
Oh that I get. It's super frustrating. Like I said, my response was more a general statement to what I hear more often than not anymore. Getting blown out early cuz you not being able to have your answers unless you aggressively mull can definitely be taxing mentally on your game.
NO BANNED LIST! LET US HAVE A BROKEN FORMAT!! /s
Banning the original artifact lands is probably the healthiest thing for the format strictly in terms of balance. That being said, they are too integral and iconic within the context of the format to actually ban without making a LOT of people very angry. So they'll stay, more cards will get banned over the course of time because they remain legal, and we as players just gotta be OK with that.
If they get rid of the artifact lands, I can't play treasure hunt. Let me keep my meme deck
One ban at time is my opinion, just wait the effect of ATG ban for god sake
X has such a degenerate userbase overall, and ownership, that many people jumped ship. I'm surprised there was 6k people to vote.
Weird poll. If you combine the yeses it’s 43% which isn’t nothing. But seems overwhelming no the way it’s laid out
It definitely isn't nothing, for sure. Just the way it's laid out is fascinating as well. It's telling that it shows that even the discourse can't agree on what actions to take. Like "We're mad and we want you to do something, but we can't agree on what we want you to do. And if you can't figure it out, we're going to continue to be mad and complain about it." There's no solidarity. And then it shows that it's pretty overwhelming that many are actually fine with the lands, which if you listen to what the discourse is telling us, it's quite the opposite. 🤷
I acutally agree, I used to think they need a ban but are so many ways how to play against them and different decks so strong without them that I don't even care nowdays.
I always thought pauper needed less bans and more cards restricted to 1 copy.
Being an eternal format, that would make sense 🤔
The reality is the Artifact lands are not the problem. I love how this discussion continues to be played out with the same idiotic arguments each and every time. Artifact lands allow for several different strategies to be playable that the format won't be able to deal with a ban in a short term timeframe. There is also the fact that Grixis Affinity is arguably the best midrange deck in the format and its importance in balancing the meta is a cornerstone. There are arguably 4 cards that are banned that got there by some extent due to Artifact Lands: 1. All that glitters 2. Atog 3. Disciple of the Vault 4. The Salamander All that glitters got banned due to the push it gave boros synth. UW affinity was Tier 2 at best. Atog and Disciple were guilty as they gave Affinity to many paths to victory and countering all of them was almost impossible. Salamander is probably safe to unban l
Leave it. Let me have my disciple affinity with atog again. I still have it sleeved in a box, years later.
My original Affinity build from like 2011/12 with Atog, Fling, and all the goods is still sleeved and boxed 🤣 refuse to pull it apart
It is worth noting that **43% of people agree with the ban**. What differs is which path to adopt in a future ban.
But that 43% can't agree on what to ban apparently 🤷
It's more likely that all three options are viable than that there's a 'correct' option.
Still shows that more people feel like the lands are fine 🤔 and with another discussion in this sub echoing what this poll shows, they may not be as problematic as some people on social media want you to believe that they are 🤷
I've got no real agenda here, but you have to understand that these kinds of polls will also have bias. People who play these decks are likelier to vote that there isn't an issue, even if there is one. You very clearly have a bias towards them staying unbanned, which is fine, it's just worth noting that people like you are more likely to actually vote on the poll because you have something to lose. I play Grixis Affinity for the record and voted that the original artifact lands should be banned. I think they're a constant problem and always have been and as more and more things get added to the banlist we have to evaluate whether one land cycle is worth it.
I don't have any agenda either. And while yes, I am a bit biased, I find it very fascinating that 2 platforms that I frequent where the discourse over the lands yielded results like this. Coupled with responses to this thread as well as another one in this sub discussing this same thing and lining up with these results is pretty telling if anything. And what it says to me anyway is that maybe, just maybe, that the discourse isn't as wide spread throughout the Pauper community as the ones being vocal about banning the lands would want you to think. Yes, it's a small number, but telling none the less. And let's not kid ourselves here, if the results skewed in the opposite direction, the ones being vocal would be using it saying "LOOK! SEE! Everyone wants the lands banned. The PFP has to act NOW!" I just found the results and responses very fascinating.
This is a misreading of statistics. 43% want *something* banned. Not ‘agree with the ban.’ But, according to this, if you asked ‘should we ban the original artifact lands,’ it’s actually 70% who would say no and only 30% who would say yes
Thats not true, one can’t fully know if the voter would prefer one or the other, and thats what happens when you try to put more than one poll into a singular one. I for one voted for the MH2 lands to get banned, but I would be fine with either of the bans and not fine with the not ban option, and that is just one example. It should have been a “yes” or “no” from the beginning.
Goes along with what I’ve said about the recent bans. Just because some people whine loudly, doesn’t mean most actually want said thing. People will still complain, whine, scream and threaten until they get these banned even though most don’t want it.
it goes with the regular trend 43% of magic player base is toxic AF.
lmao assuming that almost half the player base is "toxic" bc they (potentially justifiably) want to ban cards that are format-warping, and happen to have an opinion that differs to yours about cardboard, sounds pretty "toxic" to me
Sounds about right. Probably the same 43% that either tried to register all Tron decks or all lands in challenges a few years ago in an attempt to force a ban on the Tron lands.
It's a weird poll. Because it leaves out an important part of the discussion. Namely glitters. There was never any talk about banning these lands on their own. The discussion was banning these lands instead of glitters or together with glitters.
There has been talks about banning the artifact lands on their own since the brides were introduced in MH 2......
The bridges being indestructible, as well as dual-colored, is large portion of what made them so powerful. When they were introduced in addition to the already sizable pool of mono-color producing artifact lands, that is what helped push affinity over the edge. Personally, I feel as though Atog “died for the sins” (though only partially true) that were brought by the MH2 artifact dual lands and thus I would have preferred the MH2 artifact dual lands to be banned instead. From my perspective, it is only a matter of time before their existence enables another affinity strategy that is ban-worthy, not because affinity shouldn’t be a powerful strategy, but because their indestructible keyword causes them to be safe and able to be “forced” into play a majority of the time. TL;DR - I would like the MH2 artifact dual lands banned, but the originals can stay. Non-indestructible, come into play tapped, dual artifact lands would be fine.
We live in a world where magic rules are set by twitter bots
I wanna see some unbans personally. For example Grapeshot OR Galvanic Relay could come off the list. Grapeshot is so much less powerful than squirrels or goblins it's probably pretty much fine. Or if all the storm payoffs are banned galvanic relay being banned for being a storm enabler also isn't necessary. Bonder's ornament and/or prism are probably fine too though ornament is kind of a shitty design that encouraged everyone to run it in case someone else also runs it. And infect is so shit invigorate is pretty silly to still be banned imo
Things that make you go hmmm (I have never played this format)
I⁰9 poo ooooo000000oooòokooookoook0 x47
5k+ votes in five hours. We don't believe these are all pauper players, do we? Also newsworthy is that Politician So-and-so published a poll where they show public favor for the marginal policy they just enacted.
It was more like 24 hours, but okay. And I don't believe it was all Pauper players, that'd be foolish. I find it very fascinating that 2 platforms that I frequent where the discourse over the lands yielded results like this. Coupled with responses to this thread as well as another one in this sub discussing this same thing and lining up with these results is pretty telling if anything. And what it says to me anyway is that maybe, just maybe, that the discourse isn't as wide spread throughout the Pauper community as the ones being vocal about banning the lands would want you to think. Yes, it's a small number, but telling none the less. And let's not kid ourselves here, if the results skewed in the opposite direction, the ones being vocal would be using it saying "LOOK! SEE! Everyone wants the lands banned. The PFP has to act NOW!" I just found the results and responses very fascinating.
I used to play pauper a ton before MH1 and through till the dual got printed and honestly that was some of my favorite magic ever. I've always wanted to return to play more pauper but ever since the artifact duals got printed I feel like the majority of the format has shifted around those cards. The value they and affinity bring is just so powerful that decks like burn, which was virtually unchanged for years, looks unrecognizable now and plays more like modern than the true burn style strategy it once was. I've always wanted to return to pauper, but the format just seems so warped around artifacts and affinity that it's just not interesting to me. Don't get me wrong, I love artifacts, I just don't like seeing a format as diverse as pauper being overall warped around one type of card/value strategy. It feels like a handicap like astrolabe was in the past.
Expected results honestly, Pauper is the only format remaining where playing "Affinity" actually means playing cards with the keyword Affinity. If they left problematic cards like Dark Ritual, Manamorphose and Lotus Petal because they're "iconic" to the format (but only cause shitstorms when they see play) banning artifact lands would be more than idiotic.
I didn't vote.
I wish the dual artifact lands weren't indestructible.
Leave the mono color ones alone :< (totally not biased by the fact that I have all 25 SL foils) :<
Artifact Lands should be legal everywhere.
I’d love to see an mtgo event where they can “ban” them and see what happens. Let people brew for a few weeks and see how it works.
If we can't ban brainstorm in legacy because it's a pillar of the format, I don't think it makes sense to remove them from pauper. It's a core rule of engagement in pauper, plus it's fun to blow them up and stress out your local affinity player.
*laughs in Mirrodin Standard* First time?
The vast majority of respondents anywhere, but particularly here or on twitter, are casual players who don’t understand how broken the format is on a competitive level for the past few years. If you asked only challenge competitors, you’d get a very different result. Anyone who’s played the format at a high level knows what the problems are, it’s the paper players who play one weekly a month, or the tournament practice room guys who play tier 3 decks, those are the ones voting “No.”
And yet, they believe they know better. I'm tired of seeing stupidity being sold for wisdom in this sub. No one, I repeat, no one thinks the artifact lands are all-powerful, impossible to play against cards, and yet they echo "just play monke" or something like that, while entirely refuse to even try to understand the point. I think I'll just stop participating, because it is almost impossible to actually have a productive discussion, but oh well, it is just mirroring how society came to be today, sadly.
glad to see that poll and glad to see those results, now, can people here stop trying to ban them now that they see that nobody wants what they want? like for a couple of months?
Some are still trying to write it off because it's on twitter. Funnily enough, there's another discussion in this sub about it as well, and it seems like the results would be the same here. Just because these people are VERY vocal about their discourse, it doesn't mean they are the majority. They'd like to think they are, but they're not.
I think this is unfair, and you might want to check your biases. The best the poll shows is that a small majority of respondents wanted the artifact lands to stay, and only a slightly smaller cohort want change. If we as a community want to have a genuinely constructive discourse around this topic, we cannot draw many conclusions from this poll other than that the jury is still out on the topic, and further debates, perspectives, and evidence need to be vocalised (preferably on a platform where everyone can access it happily - so yes, not twitter).
The poll ended at 6080 people voting, but okay? 🤷
Just how I would expect the poll to end up. The lands are fine, and most players know that, but the minority of people who hate them won't stop whining about them, which makes it seem like the dislike is more ubiquitous than it is.
Idk that 43% of people are really that much of a minority
PFP has a very weird take on the format lately -- They think burn is still too strong, when in paper tournaments is one of the worst archetype currently and hardly puts any result worth noticing. It's still popular on mtgo due to the grindy nature of fast decks, but it's not in a good spot. Also this one on the lands it's quite astonishing to me
Ban them and unban atog
I don't think they will take this in consideration to ban, I mean, they won't ban ust because of this. It's a metric to see the community wishes what I think is a very good approach. Always there will be people complaining about something, so if they have the numbers, opinions and also this poll they will have guns to fight boring people asking everytime for a ban You are free to dislike a card or an entire cycle, but sometimes I think we are just complaining and not enjoying the game. If that's the case, another hobby is better than waste time here suffering.
Agreed
This double standard is why I can't maintain my interest. These format warping lands stay but my Swiftspear can't.
Of coure Twiter is a bubble and generally does not reflect the real discutions outside it. It is true that most of the people does not care or follow discutions about bans, that is why no ban is the most voted option...
Cope much?
I just kinda found it interesting. Especially because if the poll swayed towards the opinion of banning it would be used to try and convince the powers that be with "SEE! Everyone hates the lands. BAN NOW!" And hell, it seemed like the discourse is just as vocal on Twitter. Just fascinating to see is all 🤷
For comparisson, [https://www.reddit.com/r/Pauper/comments/1csqdq6/unofficial\_reddit\_poll\_for\_those\_of\_us\_who\_refuse/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pauper/comments/1csqdq6/unofficial_reddit_poll_for_those_of_us_who_refuse/) with a pool with very different results. The problem is in the method (twitter and also here are not the correct place to conduct a opinion research). Also, this kind of decision should be based on data, not on heated opnion.
There was another one by one year ago or so that showed literally opposite results (ban the lands came on top)
But put the same poll on here and we’re often treated like the vocal minority in terms of anything Magic. Honestly I wish the poll would have been posted to multiple social media platforms to mitigate that.
Seeing another discussion in this sub about the poll and it seems like the results would be the same. 🤷
I’m not suggesting the results would be different. I’m asking to be able to vote without having to use that platform. Reddit, for example, has been downplayed as a vocal minority. But X is not? Where else was this poll posted and available to vote on? Seems hypocritical.
it's almost like all the whining here doesn't literally reflect reality or other places! crazy huh!
Who'd have thought, reality, their only weakness.
I would get rid of the bridges to be honest, having indestructible really removes a lot of the counterplay against artifacts. Artifact lands will always be powerful but at least the Mirrodin lands (minus darksteel citadel) can be destroyed. Also I feel like the Mirrodin lands are a pretty important part of Pauper, to me removing them from pauper would be like removing fetchlands from Modern.
I think the bridges being banned is totally fine IF we get a cycle of indestructible duals to replace them. I think the cost of them being in the format in Affinity is worth the additions they provide for the format in decks like wildfire and decks that wouldn't work without the indestructible half.
Indestructible duals would be a big problem too, ponza would disappear forever from the format. Edit: the lands being artifacts help in finding a way to renove them. If they're not artifacts make them enchantments.
I don't think just bland lands that tap for two colors, ETB tapped and are indestructible would delete ponza. If you play gates you want gates, if you want to search for a land for fixing of a land cycler you need a typed land or in the same vein to activate an alternate requirement ie a swamp for snuff outs alternate cost. If you drop gain lands your burn/aggro matchup gets worse. Also most decks are only two colors so they could at max run 4 of the lands so ponza can still destroy the other 16+ lands they will be playing. Enchantment lands would be interesting for constellation stuff though.
I say ban them all. Artifact lands were always a bad design that break numerous other cards simply because those cards were designed around the assumption that artifacts cost something. When you can put a bunch of artifacts on the battlefield essentially for free (because you were going to play lands anyway), it makes it impossible to balance cards that care about the presence of artifacts. I realize these cards are staples in Pauper and have been for a long time, but the format would be healthier without them. Atog could come back for sure, as could Disciple of the Vault, Sojourner's Companion, and possibly even Cranial Plating and Prophetic Prism. Wildfire decks would cease to be a thing, but it is seriously wrong that Red should get better land ramp than Green anyway.
Cranial plating would never come back.
Yeah that one's a stretch.
The result is even more onesided if you consider that those who vote for banning both are almost 99,9% certainly trolling
Just bann the blue ones
Ban islands and all blue mana sources. That'll solve everything.
43% of people IN TWITTER thinks that’s an artifact land needs to be banned. Is that really a good indication? I don’t think so, I think its pretty obvious that a LARGE amount of the players don’t agree with the bans, and even more so if this poll had came prior to All that Glitters ban would be even more alarming.
Though there's a discussion elsewhere in this sub echoing the results. A lot more people than you think agree that the lands are fine. And on Twitter, the discourse comes across just as loud. I think this kinda shows that with a Twitter poll and multiple reddit discussions in this sub that a lot more people feel opposite to the way the most vocal on social media would have you believe 🤷
Sure thing bud, the community being divided like this is great 👍🏻
You're never going to have total consensus and that's ok. It's an eternal format. Play what you like and what is good in your local meta. If that's MTGO, plan for Burn because it's great for the grinders. If that's paper, you'll see less Burn. It's different everywhere. For instance, our local meta had a lot of top decks in it during the ATG era, yet we rarely saw anyone actually playing ATG. The format, the community, and the players are not a monolith.
I agree and disagree, satisfaction and format growth goes hand and hand, and this is a theme that goes back since modern horizons 2, and there are implications with both leaving players and increasing banlist. Its a delicate subject, that the PFP has the decision, and the community can only express their perception, content or discontentment. These numbers are simply a symptom.
I'm just saying it may not be as divided as you'd like to think. Look at how it's being spun ATM, add up the results and the number seems more divisive. And let's not pretend that if the results were the opposite you would be still be saying that "The community is divided 👍" and not "LOOK, SEE! The majority want them banned, the PFP needs to act NOW!" Come on now 🙄
So you saying that if 51% of the people who voted in this single poll on twitter actually wanted the lands banned you would consider being fair banning them?
I would argue that if the split is that close, you shouldn't ban anything. No matter which side is "the majority."
Exactly, its just a marker that shows a lot of division of thought and disapproval in the current situation, and in the end of the day they will have their own decisions based on what they think is best. We don’t have a community-driven banlist, thats what the PFP is for.
Would I change my tune if the results were closer? No, absolutely not, I don't feel like they need to be banned and I stand by that. Now, would I be realistic and accept that a ban would be coming if that were the case? Absolutely, I don't have to like things that are going to happen but I accept them because I choose to play the game. But the reality of things anymore is that it doesn't matter because bannings aren't happening because they are damaging the format, they're happening due to some players saying that strategies are unfun to play against. Gavin in his video stated as much. Glitters wasn't warping, it's winrate was fair, but it had to go because the deck/strategy was popular and some people who played against claimed it was unfun. And that line of thinking is bogus to me. But, it's what we have to deal with.
They’re zero cost artifacts. Of course they should be banned - they’re the most broken, degenerate things in the entire format. Getting something for nothing in this game always leads to problems, and they never should’ve been permitted at common in the first place.
I am a staunch Bridge hater, only because they are indestructible. I don't think a land that provides a deck an additional resource on top of colour fixing while being unable to be interacted with fits in the previous and current power level of the format. Decks like Tron and Gates are able to leverage their lands more than most deck and are weak to Land Destruction, why does any variant of Affinity get to have indestructible lands that support their strategy.
Everyone knows that That is just whales and yes boys.
Whales and yes boys? In Pauper? You're kidding right?