Start typing a card name and use the auto-complete feature to quickly select the card you're trying to add. Enter a quantity and add that card to your sideboard!
Submit a list of cards below to bulk import them all into your sideboard. Post one card per line using a format like "4x Birds of Paradise" or "1 Blaze", you can even enter just the card name by itself like "Wrath of God" for single cards.
Well, MTGvault LOVES budget decks, so what could be more budget than a pauper deck? For those of you who don't know, pauper decks consist of common cards only, including lands. No uncommons, no rares, no mythic rares.However, if at any point a card was printed as a common, and then reprinted as an uncommon (such as rancor), it's still pauper-legal.The only common cards that are banned in the pauper format are: cloudpost, cranial plating, empty the warrens, frantic search, grapeshot, invigorate, temporal fissure, and treasure cruise.
This deck runs like the easy-to-play modern-legal slippery bogle deck. Plop down your hexproof creatures (slippery bogle, gladecover scout, silhana ledgewalker) and enchant the heck out of it, giving it trample, first strike, reach, lifelink, etc.The sideboard mostly consists of removing their threats. One tip on using spore cloud, since a lot of people don't seem to use it correctly. When they attack, declare NO blockers. Their attackers won't deal any damage anyways, but THEIR creatures will not untap, while yours WILL untap because you declared no blockers. So then it's your turn and you can attack freely since their creatures are tapped. Then it's their turn and their creatures cannot untap. Then it's back to your turn and you can attack freely once again! That's 2 free combat turns for you. =)
This deck has been viewed 3,524 times.
Hello all! After posting expensive decks on the vault, I decided to put up some budget decks, and what better format to play budget than the Pauper format? Got any tips or suggestions for me? I'd really appreciate it! Thanks!
Permalink
Nice pauper deck, but I hate to break this to you. Oblivion Ring and Spore Cloud are considered uncommons. I know o-ring was printed in Lorwyn as a common, but the official classification is 'uncommon'. You can always look up the details on gatherer.wizards.com. In order to make the sideboard pauper too, I'd suggest replacing those with putting in Holy Day (same as Fog, just 1 white instead of 1 green), and Frog Tongue (draw a card and it can give it reach).
DOH! Hey thanks for pointing that out! Can't believe I put uncommons in the sideboard hahaha. Yeah, I decided to just put 2 more fogs in instead of holy day since I run a lot more green than white. Thanks again!
What does O-Ring currently being at Uncommon have to do w/ the Pauper-specific rule? (Hint: NOTHING.) So long as a card has EVER been issued at Common (ex: O-Ring, Lorwyn), it's legal in Pauper.
Whoops! I should have done more research. Yes, O-ring was printed as a common lots of times. But I SHOULD mention at this time that Pauper is not technically a paper format at all. It's only an online format...which means it only follows the online official rules. Example? Hymn to Tourach was printed as a common on paper, but never as a common online...which means it cannot be used in the pauper format. Of course, magic stores and comic book stores probably have their own "house rules" for paper pauper, but technically speaking, pauper is only an online format. There are no wizards-official paper pauper rules. But thanks for the catch Umoonpuca!
^_^" I guess that was my fault. I was the one who said Oblivion Ring was not pauper legal. Yes, it's legal. I had just mistakenly assumed it was legal because I have a bunch of them from the M12 and M13 core sets.
Yeah you owe me an apology! =PBottom line is that I can use them in the deck. Hooray! =)
My standard deck is cheaper than this. Just saying... And yes the vault does love budget decks.
Your standard deck also isn't pauper. Just saying.
Can whatever said pauper deck go infinite by turn 4? My deck is close to being pauper. There are no rares.
sooooo, your deck is NOT pauper right? and tell me what pauper deck does a turn 4 infinite combo?
Wow, you have a lot of standard decks haha. Well, I won't argue over the difference in money between budget decks since they're all cheap. But I figured I'd post something that wasn't so expensive (the last deck I posted ran tarmos soooooo DOH!). Anyway, I enjoy Pauper decks more than Peasant (5 uncommons) and Prince (commons/uncommons) just because it tries to put everyone on a level playing field. Thanks for looking =)
He is right though. $36 is not budget.
And that statment could be argued...
That's very true. For some people, "budget" means less than $10. There was an article deck several months ago, trying to get people to come up with $6 decks (including lands).
$36 isn't budget...? On what planet...? Seriously, NASA is standing by for the answer...they're going to send out a probe to see if there's any intelligent life there.
(Well, THAT was rude...!!!) - but accurate.
For the uninitiated, you can always tell when I've had a couple...I say just EXACTLY WTF's on my mind. But for anyone who thinks I don't understand limited means, let me say in my defense that the first 2 decks I built (for me & a friend) were built using a core-set deck & as many booster packs as we could scrounge. So been there, done that...but the times, they are a-changing'. There's plenty of good, cheap decks being brainstormed every day by creative individuals everywhere. But to say a deck "isn't budget" because it tips the scale at $36 is flat-out insane in my book. Just sayin'.
LOL! Yes, that's why I was surprised when people said $36 wasn't budget. Maybe their terms of budget are 36 cents. Umoonpuca definitely hit the nail on the head there =)
Yeah, I have to agree. $36 is SO budget. But I think people are getting lost in the purpose of this deck. It's supposed to be a deck to be played in the pauper format. I'm sure if every card was foil, and the lands full-art foil, then this deck would no longer fit the "budget" definition...but who TF cares? It's not SUPPOSED to fit the budget definition. It's supposed to fit the "pauper" definition, which it does.
Nice pauper deck, I find the format very fun. I'd suggest running Blossoming Sands instead of the guildgate, it's just better. BTW not everyone on Vault likes budget decks, I for one do not.
Thanks man! I can't believe I forgot the life-gain lands hahah! what do you think though? 4 blossoming sands and 4 graypelt refuges? I don't know how aggro I have to be, or if I can wait until the untap.Yeah, trust me. I'm not a big fan of budget decks. This is my first budget deck. =PThanks for looking! =)
Well I would stick with 4x Blossoming Sands and 0 Graypelt Refuge since they're uncommon in every set printed.
LOL! I can't believe I did it again. Suggested a uncommon card to be put in. Thanks again!
It wouldn't do much, but sometimes a matter of cents can count. I would suggest using Unflinching Courage instead of Armadillo Cloak. You could also add Ethereal Armor.
Hey thanks for looking! Actually, I already have a playset of Ethereal Armor, and I cannot use Unflinching Courage unfortunately, because it is an uncommon. It's not legal for Pauper. ;-)
I know you're not running it, but you can add Treasure Cruise to the banned list.
Hey thanks for the headsup. Didn't know it took an extra 2 months to get banned in Pauper. Just updated the "deck description". Thanks again!