Dime a Dozen #34: Pauper Deckbuilding, Part I

Hello everyone!

It’s time to get back in the saddle.

As you may remember from my last Academy article, Pauper has been kicking my butt. Loss after loss in Daily Events and in testing has prompted me to seriously reevaluate myself both as a player and Pauper strategist. At this point I think the best course of action is to start as fresh as possible, discarding a lot of preconceived notions I had about the format and about my own abilities.

It will be similarly beneficial to revisit as many of the fundamental Magic ideas and skill sets as I possibly can. I could easily see this “getting back to basics” theme carrying over to a number of future articles, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Today we are going to examine one of the most important fundamental concepts of them all: solid deckbuilding. Deckbuilding in the Pauper format is particularly interesting because the common rarity is defined (at least in some part) by its representation of the game in its “purest” form. Pauper is sometimes compared to limited since both environments are heavily dependent on their respective contingents of commons. Deckbuilders in Pauper must be cognizant of the format’s missing components as well, by taking into account the absence of unconditional wrath effects, planeswalkers, etc.

In addition to going over the fundamentals of solid deckbuilding, I will also provide links to some of my favorite deckbuilding articles of all time. Many of these articles may not be specifically geared towards Pauper, but their usefulness and relevance to the format is pretty much undeniable.

I think it’s time for us to get building!

Fundamentals of Deckbuilding: The Game Plan

The most important concept when it comes to Pauper deckbuilding is the game plan. In other words, our deck needs to have some kind of achievable goal, and thereby requires the proper tools to actualize that goal. Without a clearly defined, realistic and (preferably) simple game plan, our Pauper deck won’t be able to get very far. In Pauper, some players set out to build decks with the vague, obtuse intention of winning games of Magic. How their deck wins is the key to defining that deck’s specific and far more discussable game plan.

There are a number of very good articles out there dealing with the idea of having a plan, and today I’m going to be recommending a couple. The first one I’d like to mention is by WOTC’s Gavin Verhey, and is one of my favorite Magic articles of all time.

Take a look at Gavin’s article!

In it, he refers to the game plan as a “goal,” but I think the terms are pretty much interchangeable. He also provides detailed summaries of how each major archetype wins (or in other words, what each major archetype’s “endgame” looks like).

This is truly a fantastic article, and it’s one that I’ve revisited on multiple occasions.

Hall of Famer and Star City Games columnist Brian Kibler also went in-depth on the idea of game plans earlier this year.

Take a look at Kibler’s article!

What we can glean from these examples is that we’ve got to be constantly thinking of how our deck actively achieves its game plan/goal. Similarly, it’s important to avoid devoting most of our energy towards countering what other people may or may not be trying to do. Yes, we want to have a deck that’s powerful against the field, but it must first be powerful in a vacuum (in other words on its own) in order to have legs.

If I could distill the deckbuilding principle of the game plan into three key points, I think it would go something like this:

• Always have a game plan (an active means of winning the game).
• Understand how your plan works ideally (in a vacuum).
• Understand how your plan interacts with opposing plans (among the field).

 

Fundamentals of Deckbuilding: Composition

The next of our fundamental concepts to explore is deck composition. As far as I’m concerned, this involves the art of blending and balancing essential components in the deck. It’s not just what comprises the decklist, but also how many, what’s not included, and why.

Each major archetype consists of a larger, general sort of composition that will, of course, grow more dynamic and disparate the more specific we get. As an example, control decks (whose game plan often is to marginalize the opponent’s early plays and win by having a greater amount of late game resources) will usually be composed of card advantage (to draw and use more cards), creature removal (to stop early threats), countermagic (to stop anything important) and finishers (to win the game with).

The ratio of card advantage to removal to countermagic to finishers, however, will change from deck to deck. These changes are based on a number of factors such as the current metagame, the colors available to the deck, the deck’s mana curve, and the pilot’s individual preferences.

You may notice that I’ve been referring to deck archetypes a lot when talking about composition. This is for good reason, since the archetypes themselves often determine a deck’s composition.

Observe the whopping 21 maindeck removal spells (if you count Crypt Rats and Cuombajj Withces) in this 4-0 Mono-Black Control list:

Alternatively, an aggro deck doesn’t need to play as many removal spells as a control deck, because it’s not concerned with prolonging the game and fending off early game assaults. An aggro deck is the early game assault, so the more dedicated it is to curving out, presenting threats, and dealing damage, the more efficient it will tend to be.

Some aggro decks hardly even play removal spells, because they are that sharply focused and non-interactive. This 4-0 Pauper DE list should highlight my point:

An aggro deck wants to play its own game, and force the opposition to panic, react, and adapt (ideally at a pace that’s continuously one step behind). The same can be said about why aggro decks dedicate less of their composition to card advantage and countermagic, but at any rate I think you get the point.

Understanding composition is virtually synonymous with understanding the major archetypes. Channel Fireball writers and Hall of Fame residents Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa and Luis Scott-Vargas have both written considerably illuminating pieces on the identity and evolution of deck archetypes, which I‘ve personally found very helpful. You can find those very pieces below!

Aggro (PVDDR)
Aggro-Control (PVDDR)
Control (PVDDR)
Combo (PVDDR)
Midrange (LSV)

Here are three key points concerning deck composition:

• Composition is informed by the game plan (If our plan is to prolong the game, for instance, then we’re going to need more defensive components than usual).
• Composition varies from archetype to archetype (and furthermore from deck to deck).
• Composition is equal parts inclusion and exclusion (we can’t play everything, so we must strive to incorporate the best and most essential components for the job).

 

Fundamentals of Deckbuilding: Mana and the Mana Curve

Every play we make begins with, and is made possible by, mana (excluding of course affinity spells, convoke spells, Daze, Gush, Patrician’s Scorn, Phyrexian mana, Ramosian Rally, Spinning Darkness— OMG Pauper is so broken).

Without an adequate number of lands in play, or (equally frustrating) without our needed colors, we may as well have no cards in hand, 0 life, and -7 self respect. Mana is so often overlooked and underappreciated because it lacks the flashiness and flair of spells. However, the fact of the matter is this: lands have a symbiotic relationship with spells. The two go hand-in-hand, so they may as well be synonymous.

Excluding some of the wackier, more extreme decks, you pretty much never want to start a game with all of one and none of the other. Being flooded sucks, but being screwed sucks just as hard. I’ve previously written about and provided examples of bad mana (which you can check out in this article), so for now I’ll try to focus exclusively on how to have good mana.

Good mana equates to an adequate amount of sources, and the likelihood that we’ll consistently draw those sources at the desired time. It does require a bit of math knowledge since probability plays a part in helping us figure out how likely we are to draw that fourth land on Turn 4, etc.

As a general rule, the fewer colors we play, the more consistent our mana will be. This is doubly true in Pauper because we lack the really awesome duals that are played in other formats (thinkBadlands, Hallowed Fountain, Marsh Flats, Rootbound Crag, Vivid Creek, etc.).

Here are a handful of articles to check out that should definitely help you with your manabases. The first one presents a nice, basic set of principles (all having to do with mana). It’s written by Jonathan Sukenik.

Check out Jonathan’s article!

The second article is Pauper-specific, and pertains to monocolor vs. multicolor aggro. The article, written by Pitlord, also juxtaposes the tools available to Modern mages with those present in the Pauper format. (Note: Please keep in mind that this was written before the printing of the Guildgates, Ethereal Armor, or Nivix Cyclops).

Check out Pitlord’s article!

This third article is (once again) from Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa. It may seem like I’m showcasing a lot of his writing, but that’s for good reason. Along with being one of the greatest players ever, I personally feel like he’s one of the best writers.

Check out Paulo’s article!

Lastly, there’s a considerably excellent resource available that I’d like to recommend, dealing with the wider topic of deckbuilding (and consequently the topic of mana bases). Next Level Deckbuilding is its name, and its creator is none other than “The Innovator” Patrick Chapin. In it, he emphasizes the importance of good mana and logical mana curves.

Unlike our previous links, however, this resource isn’t free. If you have budget constraints or some other reservations about buying the book, you can still check out this preview portion that focuses on how the mana curve applies to building mana bases.

A good example of an effective mana curve can be found in the following 4-0 Delver list:

With this kind of a curve, very few of the early turns will be “wasted” in terms of mana spent. Turn 1 offers up the potential to play a threat or resolve a library manipulation spell, Turn 2 our first ninjutsu opportunity, the ability to play more threats and/or counter our opponent’s spell.

There are even some ideal “4-drop” plays in the form of casting a Spire Golem for 2, or slipping in a Ninja of the Deep Hours. Assuming we’ve hit all of our land drops, we can leave up mana all the while to disrupt what the enemy is doing on their turn.

This 4-0 Goblins list also bolsters an impressive curve, as all of its spells can be cast with just two lands. Since so many of the spells cost R, we’re often able to resolve two or three creatures in a single turn.

The three key points for mana and curve are:

• Play an adequate number of lands (don’t skimp here! Incorporate utility lands like Barren Moor, Teetering Peaks, etc., if you’re concerned about flood).
• Play an adequate number of sources of each color (this will vary wildly depending on your deck’s composition).
• Strive for a fluid mana curve rather than a clunky one (in Pauper the early turns are particularly crucial, so stay away from decks that have no significant Turn 1 or Turn 2 plays).

 

To Be Continued

Well, that’s going to be all for now. There are still a number of deckbuilding topics to cover, including card evaluation, metagame considerations, and the sideboard. If you have any specific deckbuilding requests, or would like to critique my coverage of the subject thus far, please do so.

As always, thanks for reading, and please comment!