MTG Pauper

>if you go by MTGO rules theres a bunch of cards I used to use all the time that aren't legal since they haven't had recent reprints.
Uh? Aren't ALL commons from Alpha to Rivals legal?
Except the banned ones of course.

>pauper decks were more expensive than standard decks
I'm not sure where you heard that, but that's just completely false.

If you can't spend 50 bucks on a deck you should really think of stop relying on your mum's allowance, user.

Sinkhole, hymn, high tide, goblin grenade, and some other cards aren't legal on MTGO, which until now has been the only real place for pauper. Vintage masters, which is an MTGO only set printed a couple of important cards at common.

Boros here.

Where my Kuldotha and Monarch bros at.

>I disagree that counterspell is a problem, and I think citing WotC's opinion is kind of a moot point, no one likes their idea of balance.
Your opinion is as valid as mine in that regard. Honestly I want them to make a hard counterspell that costs 2U, but they never will.
>I also disagree that the meta is slim
>I wouldn't call like 10 top tier decks a slim meta
I would, since there are thousands upon thousands of commons. There should be many times more decks that can compete.
>blue is certainly over represented in the top meta decks because of how many low opportunity cost, high payoff cards it gets in brainstorm and other cantrips
We can agree on this.

I don't really understand what's your point. What if those aren't legal?

>want to play cards that have a reason to be legal in a format but aren't
>can't play them but wish I could
>why does that annoy me?

They're banned. Do you also want to play your Black Lotus?

Lotus was never common