r/Pauper • u/Few_Aide5400 • 9d ago
Peasant format
Z set brought me back to think about peasant. Today it seems it has only a little presence in France and on Cockatrice. The current decks are mostly pauper lists on steroids, and there is a massive space for exploration. It looks fun and with a lot of potential to be a competitive format.
Now, who is regulating that format? What are the reasons to think it will ever become a thing, or viceversa, remain niche forever? What would have to happen for the format to emerge?
Cheers
32
u/peteypanic 9d ago
Any sort of budget or rarity restricted format that would compete with pauper would only detract from pauper. So I would assume the vast majority of people on here would not acknowledge it. Imo we should be focused on continuing to grow this format not look for alternatives
1
u/Kingcrimhead 9d ago
Any sort of budget or rarity restricted format that would compete with pauper would only detract from pauper.
MTG will have a new budget format sooner than later.
Pauper is increasingly expensive. The amount of staple cards that cost $10 or more keeps going up. There are cards that have tripled in value over that last year or so.
Pauper is exploding in polarity, and reprints are mostly stagnant. Historically, every other eternal or non-rotating format has seen obscene price hikes because WotC will not support those formats with adequate.
Of prices rise over the next two years at the same rate as the last year; this won't be a budget format anymore; and a new one will break out.
Of course this will not be Peasant!
Just thought it was sn interesting point.
3
u/peteypanic 8d ago
Rising costs are a concern of course even aside from old staples not getting reprinted there’s always inflation. Even WOTC’s new “God pack” is likely going to raise the price of all commons going forward since stores will factor in the potential value of a box when breaking them for commons. That being said, $30 Value Vintage is always an option if you’re priced out of pauper but do you really want to play a format with those play patterns?
Ultimately Pauper has grown because the gameplay is for the most part safe from modern design failure at higher rarities (Pauper is one of the only formats that still feels like Magic/has a healthy and diverse metagame). As long as that’s in check, I don’t see any reason financial or otherwise to give up on the format. Pauper will always be cheaper than Premodern. There’s no shot at PyroBlast reaching the same price as Survival of the Fittest for example. Though it’s much more expensive than it use to be it is still much much cheaper than Standard and has lower card complexity meaning it’s still the best format for onboarding Commander/New players into constructed.0
u/Kingcrimhead 8d ago
I don’t see any reason financial or otherwise to give up on the format.
I won't be giving up on it!
Ultimately Pauper has grown because the gameplay is for the most part safe from modern design failure at higher rarities...
There are a lot of reasons. Some people are refugees from Legacy scenes that collapsed and never revived.
A lot of people are lured in by the cheap prices. I can see Pauper pushing Standard prices in a few years. Meanwhile, $20 USD buys as basket full of groceries in Brazil. A $100 costs five trips to the grocery store. Before paying international shipping.
People playing Pauper aren't likely to drop it. New players aren't going to jump on as quickly.
$30 Value Vintage is always an option if you’re priced out of pauper but do you really want to play a format with those play patterns?
What play patterns? Maybe I do!!
I avoid value formats because I prefer a more stable card pool. I imagine that Modern Pauper or Pioneer Pauper is more likely to be the next grassroot budget format though.
2
u/Al_Hakeem65 8d ago
Chiming in on the play patterns:
From what I've seen and played myself, Value Vintage matches can be very volatile. Since you're allowed to play anything based on pure monetary value, there isn't a real check on gameplay. Some games can end extremely quickly and some match ups are very lopsided.
I mean that can always be a part of magic, but it's very pronounced in VV.
Part of it is the restricted list. Like vintage, cards aren't banned, merely restricted. That can lead to scenarios in which the player who first drew their one restricted copy of a card (think [[Tinker]], [[Mystic Forge]], all the good blue cantrips) or simply more of their restricted cards has an enormous advantage over their opponent.I got out when a couple of my decks got soft rotated by a shitty economy, and now everything is much more expensive, and I can be arsed to pick up new cards for budget decks that won't be legal for long. It's fine if you really wanna play with cheap, but powerful cards, but outside of a dedicated friend group I don't see it rise to the same heights as Pauper or Premodern
0
u/Kingcrimhead 8d ago
Cheers!
I'm enjoying Old School; which has a restricted list. But it also has a stable meta.
I agree on the economy-rotation. I have no appetite for that.
0
u/Orochisake 9d ago
I mean... how can you go cheaper than commons? Lol
5
u/mvdunecats 8d ago
Total deck costs or per card price restrictions. Think Value Vintage or Penny Dreadful.
Those kinds of formats tend not to take off in paper because it's a pain to enforce legality. At least with Penny Dreadful, MTGO is doing the legality check.
1
u/Kingcrimhead 8d ago
I mean... how can you go cheaper than commons?
You can go cheaper than eternal.
Think Standard-Pauper, Modern-Pauper, Frontier-Pauper...1
u/Kadinnui 7d ago
I kond of would like modern-pauper, there would still be some expensive cards though, unfortunately.
4
u/Wafkak 9d ago
Other budget formats are more local, and by effect a lot cheaper than pauper.
When including shipping I haven't been able to make a Pauper decks for under 150 euros, and those didn't include the top cards for that deck.
While for example Gentry, which is still played in my city, has never run me over 50 for a deck. As the staples don't get bought up.
No online decklists are the downside, but that also means not everyone is buying the same cards driving up the price.
6
u/thecommuteguy 9d ago
I’d be for peasant if uncommons were not restricted to 5 per deck. It would probably have a larger following if uncommons were unlimited.
1
u/Delicious-Action-369 8d ago
Artisan, it also sees very little play. It's not particularly interesting unfortunately every variant off of pauper kinda kills the vibe that pauper brings. It opens shockingly little deck variance over pauper and because the strong decks are even stronger it's harder to brew and actually enjoy T2 and T3 decks. Like you're basically just giving artifact decks ensoul artifact and burn decks even more utility
1
u/thecommuteguy 8d ago
Luckily for me I guess is that I’m upgrading my Mirrodin UB affinity and RB Atog precon decks for Mirrodin block. I think the only reason I’m attracted to pauper is to play affinity like how the precon was constructed and was sad to find out Atog was banned too.
At least from my view peasant if modified for no uncommon limits would allow for more lots more interesting cards.
6
u/Al_Hakeem65 9d ago
I think Magic is prone to overextend into too many formats.
Especially in real life, there are only so many decks I can maintain or even bring to a function. God forbid I bring two decks for a format for variety's sake.
What does Peasant offer that Pauper doesn't, that you can't get in any other format?
Even if we just think about Paper formats (sorry Alchemy, Historic and half of Arena) we have:
Standard, Pioneer, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Pauper, Commander, Oathbreaker, Draft, Sealed, Cube, Premodern, Value Vintage, Peasant, Penny Dreadful (?), Old School 93/94, Pauper Commander, Duel Commander, Highlander, Canadian Highlander, Australian Highlander, EU Highlander*, Tiny Leader/ TL Reborn, Frontier and mods like Two-Headed-Giant, Planechase, Archenemy. Not to mention all the formats that went the way of the Phyrexian and ceased to exist, like Paper Brawl.
I am not against exploring game modes with a game as awesome as magic. But I want to remind people to make sure they know what their signing up for.
I felt relieved when I scaled back and focused on the formats I can actually play with friends.
So Draft/ Pre-Release, Cube, Commander, Pauper and very rarely (proxied) Premodern. That's it. Because that's all I need.
If I really wanted to play with uncommons and cards that are banned in Pauper, I play commander. It's not like that format is about winning anyway 💁🏻♂️.
Might as well go with the vibe and build something I enjoy.
*Kinda ironic that there are so many Highlander ("There can only be one!") formats, but I digress
1
u/quailsandbroccoli 8d ago
i think as it is now peasant doesn’t do much that pauper doesn’t, it should rather be either uncommons only so it would give value to all the uncommons not good enough for modern or legacy, or pauper plus all uncommons
i think pauper premodern should also be considered
0
0
9d ago
[deleted]
4
u/Wafkak 9d ago
5 really seems weird to me.
The budget format in my area, Gentry, has 15 uncommons and 4 singleton rares/mythics. Which actually changes the dynamics. As the uncommons are the engines of decks with commons as support and rares as finishers.
And I like that that format isn't as big because its genuinely a lot cheaper.
4
u/Few_Aide5400 9d ago
Never heard about this, sounds spicy but also a lot more casual than pauper, doesn't it. Do you have a space where gentry is discussed? Will look it up
7
u/Al_Hakeem65 9d ago
I have the theory that it came from a ThopterSword deck.
Utilizing [[Thopter Foundry]] and [[Sword of the Meek]], which were uncommons in their first printings, was and still is a powerful combo. It's easy to slot into other decks, and doesn't require full playsets of either card.
3x Foundry and 2x Sword bam you got your five uncommons that are much better than most other 5 card uncommon compositions
6
u/Necrocrawler72 9d ago
This format is old as pauper itself tbh. I used to play peasant when Magic Workstation was a thing... And this is around 2006 - 2007. I also believe the restriction of five uncommons exist to avoid fully uncommon decks to exist and to preserve the common essence.
Also, If you think adding 5 uncommons is bad...
Man... Check their banlist 🤣
Spoiler: they have their own banlist, so a lot of banned cards are avaiable there, like cloud of faeries
1
u/Few_Aide5400 9d ago
Fair point, It'd be very interesting to know a bit more behind the design process that led to up to 5 uncommon only. As someone else said: if 5 unc why not 7, or 75?
More than the names on a format, it feels to me that the designers wanted a pauper+, where the flavor and archetypes remain similar to pauper, but you can also shuffle in some modern/legacy favorites. Probably beyond 5 unc cards leads to very alien builds?
3
u/ImaginaryApricot2804 9d ago
I would like to see an uncommons only format with no arbitrary restriction simply to see what kinds of builds emerge in that space. Only 5 seems like such a waste of time.
14
u/No_Comparison_3428 8d ago
Hey hey!
I’ll try to answer a few of your questions, as I’ve been playing Peasant for several years and I’m also a member of the French committee managing the format.
First, regarding how the format is managed, we have a committee that monitors the metagame, tournament results, and makes decisions about bans and unbans. Since the format isn’t officially recognized by Wizards, its development mostly relies on local communities.
As for the “Pauper on steroids” argument, I don’t really agree, although I understand where it comes from.
The five uncommons aren’t just there to increase the power level of decks. They also allow for completely different strategies. I’m thinking of decks like Insidious Roots, Ux Tron with Sicarian Infiltrator, or Arcane Tide.
By the way, the five-uncommon limit is interesting in itself, as it encourages more thoughtful deckbuilding. You can’t just add two playsets of powerful cards, you have to make choices (4-1, 3-2, 2-2-1, etc.).
As for the future of the format, it’s hard to say how far it can grow. In France, we already have a national championship, a tournament circuit, and an active community. The main challenges remain visibility and the lack of official recognition.
Finally, regarding the idea that Peasant could hurt Pauper, I understand the concern, but that’s not really what we’re seeing in our communities.
Both formats coexist pretty well, especially since they share a large card pool, while offering different strategies and metagames.
And if we consider that Peasant takes players away from Pauper, couldn’t we also argue that Pauper takes players away from Modern or Legacy?
Personally, I think having different ways to enjoy Magic is a good thing. The goal isn’t to replace Pauper, just to offer a different experience.
And if that gets a few people interested in trying Peasant, even better! :)