Hm - the responses have given me a lot to think about. As I run an unpowered cube, Moat would be my most expensive individual card if I purchase it, so I want to be sure that it's a good addition. Glad to hear that there are two sides to the argument. It does seem that it is a card that decks just need to think about when drafting/building, and have a plan for defeating. As such, I am not as negative on it and am leaning toward inclusion. Just need to sell a few more cards...
Thanks - I understand what you're saying. I may just need to remind players of some of the ways that you can work around a card like Moat after the first feel-bad moment. Also, I have a different goal for my cube - the goal isn't to play with the most powerful cards in Magic - the goal is to have fun playing Magic with awesome cards. If it isn't fun, then we're doing it wrong.
I just wanted to discuss this one - I am at the point where I have restricted my cube to Legacy-legal cards only, but I want to then include all of the best Legacy cards. Now, Moat is an obvious inclusion on power level. I've read through the thread, but I have to be honest, I'm a little worried about it leading to games/matches where opponents just scoop rather than play magic. I've been trying hard to ensure that aggro is a thing, and this one card just blanks aggro decks, especially Red/Black who have no answers to an enchantment. Unfortunately, my play group is not particularly fond of cards that entire decks can't answer. Now, I get that there are some things you can do, (e.g. land destruction to keep them from getting to 4 to cast it, discard, fliers, straight burn) but I can already see people picking up their decks and moving on to the next match. They won't be angry - they just won't be having fun, which is the point. Has anyone tried Moat and had this experience?
EDIT: It may also be worth mentioning that I'm on the verge of dropping my cube down to 360 from 450 - meaning that an individual card, like Moat, would turn up more frequently than it currently does.
Alright, thanks for the responses. I think I had it under control right up to the "change zones" part (well, and I used the colloquial "fizzle" ).
Now, just to follow-on from this (and hoping I'm not breaking the forum rules), if the Strangleroot Geist dies while under my control, triggering the undying effect, it will return to play under my opponent's control because he's the "owner", correct?
I have an untapped Adarkar Valkyrie in play and my opponent is attacking with Strangleroot Geist (could be any creature with undying though). (Attack was part of a larger swarm attack in case you're wondering why they'd attack here ). I'm trying to figure out whether I will get the Geist if I kill it.
What I think happens:
1. Opponent attacks. I setup to kill Strangleroot Geist either by declaring a blocker that will kill it or using a removal spell (in actual game used a blocker).
3. Strangleroot Geist dies, and both the triggered ability from Adarkar Valkyrie and the undying ability from Strangleroot Geist trigger. Because it's my opponent's turn, I think he gets priority first. So undying goes on the stack first, then the abilty from Valkyrie.
4. Valkyrie ability resolves, so Strangleroot Geist returns to play under my control, without any counters on it.
5. Undying resolves - or does it fizzle? This is where things really fall apart for me, if they haven't already above. If undying resolves, does the Strangleroot Geist return to my opponent with a +1/+1 counter, even though I controlled it momentarily?
Please correct any an all errors in my analysis. I'm keen to understand the final result as well.
I can't believe it's been so long since my last update! This is essentially my Theros block + Commander 2013 update, along with a few sweet pickups (Sinkhole, Rolling Earthquake) I made along the way.
In the past, I've really struggled to make cuts, but I didn't find it too difficult this time. Some of the additions, I'm sure, won't be long term staples (Dictate of Heliod?) and some of the cuts could be undone in the future (Earthquake?) but I'm pretty happy for now.
Dictate of Heliod is included because I am trying to push the "swarm" archetype (often referred to as "tokens") based in White, and this card is very good in that deck.
Other than that, I'm always interested in thoughts and feedback on changes.
Conspiracy and likely M15 will be on my radar next, though I'm not currently looking at including the special "as you draft this" cards from Conspiracy - just not up my alley and we cube infrequently so I don't feel the need to add that additional layer of complexity (though I can see how it would be a fun diversion for frequent drafters).
EDIT: I should also mention that I found it useful to compare my cube with the "average cubes" (in this case the Cube Tutor 450) on cubetutor.com. I don't necessarily agree with all of the average decisions, but it really helped point out cards that perhaps other people are cutting that I should consider for my short list.
Some good advice above, and if you want to replicate the draft environment as faithfully as possible, the recommended scaling method is probably a good approach.
I chose a different tack, wanting to create a cube-like singleton experience. For Innistrad block, I acquired one copy of every card, including rare and mythic rare. The problem with this approach is that rares do not provide the same kinds of effects that you usually find at common and uncommon. So, while there is usually some kind of removal at rare, most of the removal in a block is actually at common and uncommon. The net effect is a paucity of removal in the kind of cube mentioned above. Compounding this is the fact that many of the things that you can do at rare are relatively powerful, so you end up with decks that can do powerful things and can rarely be disrupted by the opponent.
There is one other thing that bothered me about this approach - cost. There are usually a handful of very good rares in a set and they can be expensive. On top of that, if you think including Bog Hoodlums is a waste, try spending actual money on Elbrus, the Binding Blade. Yuck. And of course this just compounds across all of the rares.
So, I eventually decided to just scale back to "peasant" - i.e. just commons and uncommons. While this does, of course, omit some powerful cards that actually do turn up in draft/sealed/league, I find that it is more faithful to the "feel" of the limited environment than the rares-included singleton approach.
I have done this now for Innistrad and Return to Ravnica blocks, went back and did it for Scars of Mirrodin since I already had most of the cards, and am now collecting all of my Theros cards from multiple leagues to do it again. I have thought of going back through my collection to see what else I can piece together - I should be able to do Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block(s) (either separately or together) and Shards of Alara. I didn't draft much Zendikar and don't feel like dropping cash on that.
It should be noted that the singleton approach does have the effect at times of changing the value/power level of some cards. In particular, not being able to get multiples of the same card can make certain strategies less effective. For example, in Theros block, I'll only have one copy of Gray Merchant of Asphodel. In this case, the card itself isn't any worse, but strategies looking to do this kind of thing will need other reasons - they can't rely on 2-3 copies of the centrepiece card. Overall, the feel is more like the full-block draft experience since you have fewer opportunities for multiples in that environment.
And one other thing - the environment can be negatively affected when WotC doesn't continue themes all the way through the set. For example, in Innistrad block, the werewolf deck is significantly worse in my configuration when I include Avacyn Restored...oh, well.
Well, it's been a long time since I've made an actual update. This update includes M14, Theros, and a few stragglers from RTR block. Below is my pending update - we have a draft scheduled soon so I'll need to finalize the changes in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I'm keen for any feedback so that I can adjust my update if someone convinces me to.
EDIT: Somewhere along the way, I seem to have swapped in Garruk Relentless for Ohran Viper. I'll include this change in this update, since it's not already in my change log. I shouldn't do that...it's the first time that's ever happened. I guess I've just been too busy this year.
There was a discussion earlier in the thread about reach in White-based aggro decks. Armageddon and Ravages of War are the "reach" cards that put me into White-based aggro. It's the reason that I dumped a bucket of cash to buy Ravages. With two of those cards in my 450 cube, the effect is the equivalent of an uncommon, so it just comes up more often. Without those cards, I don't think White-based aggro would be nearly as good in my cube. (swords, etc. also help).
The best pair with White, as has already been said, is Red for reach from burn. But Red doesn't have a lot of great 1-drops, so White has to carry the burden in this area. Hence, this card is a welcome addition.
There are several cards from this set that I am considering and will likely include, but this is my first auto-slam (well, planeswalkers are likely but not urgent - this guy is).
Without having considered what I'd actually cut, I'll be looking to include this.
I think "swarm" theme is a more appropriate term than "token" theme for what I support in my cube. Cards like Blade Splicer are more cubable in general than straight token cards, though of course the good token cards (Spectral Procession, Lingering Souls, etc.) are always welcome. Anyway, because of this, I like the anthems that just hit all creatures you control, not just tokens or White creatures, etc. So this is a great fit.
The extra ability might be handy in those awkward times when you have an anthem on the board and no creatures 'cause they all been kilt.
3. AVR has artifact based fixing.
The only reason this expansion has been chosen was that it is the last non-multicolor themed set. With the above table, you can generate the numbers for any set you want and see if they are comparable.
I missed Vessel of Endless Rest at uncommon, but that's about it. I understand why you chose AVR - I guess my only point was that I agree you're correct that the average limited environment has fewer difficult-to-cast cards, but it's also worth noting that it generally has far less fixing as well.
Basically, to make things easier to cast, you can choose cards that are easier to cast, add more fixing, or some mix of both. At some point, there is a tradeoff with how easy it is to run 2, 3, 4 or even 5 colours in your deck and the associated need to identify "castability" as a factor in the power level of your deck in limited and prioritise picks accordingly.
Back to the original point of this thread, I personally believe that, in large quantities, cards like the Tri-Lands and Vivid Lands make it too easy to get 3+ colour decks while simultaneously favouring the slower midrange and control decks that can simply run any powerful card from any colour if they survive to turn 3-4 to get their mana sorted. While it is the prerogative of the cube designer, I personally find it more interesting and enjoyable to be forced to make decisions.
4. Kind of: This does not take artifacts, gold cards, disruption, (in)direct fixing or mulligans into account and only looks at the color requirements. In this model, all cards are equally popular. Etb tapped mana sources or casting multiple spells is not taken into account. The result is that in this model, the average nonland card has an average chance of 13% to be uncastable because of its color requirements by the time you could cast it if you hit all your land drops.
As a side note: If a card is uncastable this turn because of color requirements, there is an about 75% chance that you still can't cast it the following turn. This is a huge problem for cards that are only good in a limited time frame, like the classic WW Knights.
Understood. I agree that the CC cards are a problem. Obviously I agree that having more fixing available can make it easier to cast those. But as I've banged on about probably enough, I believe that brings with it other, in my view negative, consequences to the draft environment. Therefore I think that if you're running CC drops, then your deck should really be A/b, rather than truly A/B. That way, you can maybe have 12-13 sources of White to cast your knight, and run fewer sources of your second colour and focus on mid-late game threats in that colour. Again, it all comes down to whether you want to encourage decision making and tradeoffs at this level or simply allow everyone to live the dream.
5. The simplified aggregation function is just 10 x commons + 3 x uncommons + 1 x rares and reflects the frequency these cards appear in regular boosters.
Ah - I see. So it doesn't take into account the number of commons/uncommons/rares in the set to determine how frequently a particular card will actually appear in a draft on average. When I add this in, each common appears 2.4 times, each uncommon 1.2 times and each rare 0.4 times in an "average" draft. using these ratios I get 6:3:1, so I would multiply the commons only by 6 rather than 10. (EDIT: for the sake of completion, if you want to take Mythic Rares into account as well, then the ratios are 12:6:2:1. This assumes a typical large set containing 101 commons, 60 uncommons, 53 rares and 15 mythic rares. Avacyn Restored is one such "typcial" set, as are all of the core sets M10 through M13 and reportedly M14 as well).
(XCCC cards like Cryptic Command are counted in the X1CC section. Only monocolored cards between 1 and 6 mana got considered.)
If you look up the values in this table
possible on curve color requirement issues in percent otp with 8/9/10/11/12/13 sources of that color: W////: 18/14/11/ 8/ 6/ 5 1W/U/B/R/G: 14/10/ 8/ 6/ 4/ 3 WW/U/B/R/G: 49/41/34/28/23/18 2W/U/B/R/G: 10/ 7/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2 1WW/UU/BB/RR/GG: 41/33/27/21/16/12 3W/U/B/R/G: 8/ 5/ 4/ 2/ 2/ 1 2WW/UU/BB/RR/GG: 34/27/20/15/11/8 4W/U/B/R/G: 6/ 4/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 1 3WW/UU/BB/RR/GG: 28/21/15/11/ 8/ 5 5W/U/B/R/G: 4/ 3/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 0 4WW/UU/BB/RR/GG: 27/16/11/ 8/ 5/ 3
You get the following percentages for not having enough the appropriated colored mana for a card:
Cube:
8 sources: 23
9 sources: 18
10 sources: 13
11 sources: 11
12 sources: 8
13 sources: 6
Tl;dr: The increased color requirements of the cards that you find in a cube demand a significantly increased amount of mana fixing compared to a regular limited environment if you want to keep things comparable.
Interesting analsysis and choices. I have a few comments:
1. This is good analysis that I think will be useful for deeper examination of my cube. It might be the kind of thing to add to the wishlist over on the cubetutor thread - I've checked it out but haven't posted my feature requests yet.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the analysis was relevant to my comparison to limited; my point about the hypothetical set containing guildgates and common fetches was simply to illustrate the relative frequency of appearance of a card in a draft and to give a feel for how easy or difficult it should be to get fixing in an "average" draft.
3. The specific example that you chose was Avacyn Restored - it's an interesting choice because it's also worth noting that the only land-based fixing in that set is Cavern of Souls at Rare; there's also no artifact-based fixing. So, basically, outside of Green, there is no fixing whatsoever. As you've illustrated, there's likewise no CC two-drops at common or uncommon and only one at rare. For the most part, there are actually very few of these difficult casting costs as you mention - but there is also pretty much no fixing available either.
4. If I understand your final analysis correctly, you're saying that across the board, in your cube, if you have 10 sources of the appropriate coloured mana for a given card, then 13 percent of the time you won't have the correct mana. Is that correct? If so, I have no problem with that number. If you want to run a number of CC two-drops, or whatever, then you need to look to draft more fetches, go after the rainbow fixers, etc. But otherwise, that number seems appropriate to me.
EDIT: Just a specific question about your analysis. In looking at AVR, you have identified that there are 20 commons with C casting cost, 4 at uncommon and 4 at rare. In your Aggregated section, you indicate 216 one-drops. How did you come up with this number? (I've tried a couple of different things but get different numbers).
You don't really have to run all 5/10 of them. In my cube, I am only playing the U+G ones, since these are the most common colors to go 3+c.
Agreed. That's why I said "and they make up any significant percentage of your cube" - putting a few rainbow fixers in is going to smooth out the mana and not break things. It's when getting that kind of fixing is easy that things will tend to warp to 4-5 colour. In both Lorwyn and Shards of Alara draft, these cards were uncommon and at that frequency drafting many colours was pretty easy to do.
Also - disciplined drafters can stay two-colour anytime. I'm just going on what the average player is going to do.
(I assume that you are talking about land based mana fixing, since otherwise 10% seems really low.)
Yes, I'm referring specifically to mana-fixing lands. This doesn't count any artifact fixing, though my cube is extremely light on this, nor does it count all of Green's fixing.
When you don't pick all over the place, you end up with more than enough nonland playables for your deck, but everything but the 23 best of them don't improve your deck (not counting sideboarding). However almost every fixing nonbasic is going to make your deck better.
Many of the best cards in each color require CC and to get to two sources of that color on turn 4, you need to have 12-13 sources to get to 90% = 7-8 duals. If you take into account that the lands are not distributed optimally among all players and the colorless lands that hurt your mana base, the above mentioned 3 duals aren't nearly enough.
Yeah, I see that. But that's part of drafting - prioritizing picks (land, cards that are easier to cast, primary vs. secondary colour, etc.). In any event, fetchlands actually do a lot of work here as well to even things out. Players that prioritize fixing and taking "off-colour" fetchlands can have access to more virtual copies of their on-colour duals.
Would I consider maybe going up to a fifth set of duals? Maybe if they're on the power level of the big 3, but even as it currently stands I've had complaints. I sometimes get the drafters to voluntarily answer a few simple questions. In response to the question "What did you like least about the cube draft experience?" I've received the answer "Too many nonbasic lands." So, while I understand that more fixing is great, so is more cards that you can actually cast, and it turns out that mana fixing isn't considered that exciting by some drafters. I personally like to prioritize it but I think that drafters should have to stretch just a little to make their mana work - shouldn't be too easy.
EDIT: Looking at it a different way, you can use Cube Rarity. In a 450-card cube, a card or effect is "common" if there are 3 copies. Since I have 4 on-colour fixers per guild, "duals" for each guild occur slightly more frequently than a common would in a traditional booster draft. 5 rainbow fixers is almost an additional 2 commons.
So, imagine a booster draft of a traditional large set (229 cards not including basic lands). Imagine if that set contained all 10 guildgates at common, plus Terramorphic ExpanseandEvolving Wilds, also at common. The land-based fixing levels that I've recommended for cube are a little better than this, and of course of much higher quality and flexibility given fetchlands.
To answer one of the other questions raised in this thread, I run 10% pure mana fixing lands at 450. This is full cycles of ABUR duals/fetches/shocks, a 4th "cycle" of lands being whatever that colour pair needs (e.g. dual manland or filter land or painland or Horizon Canopy...) for 40, and then 5 "rainbow" fixers as someone called them.
Something to keep in mind with mana fixing is what I call the "+1 rule". Basically, whatever fixing you provide in bulk will tend to encourage the number of colours it fixes plus one.
For example, take a simple set with no fixing and run an 8-player draft. What fixing do you have? I said "none", but really you have basic lands, so that's effectively 1-colour fixing. How many colours do drafters tend to play? Of course, they can play whatever they like, but the most common configuration is 2 colours.
Now, take that same set and add in Terramorphic Expanse. It only takes up one common slot, but because it can fix any colour, how is it most often used? In my experience, it is most often used to splash a third colour, not just make your 2-colour deck stronger. Of course, as always, it can be used this way but the tendency is to go +1. (Note that if there were as many Terramorphic Expanses in such a draft as there are guild gates, then, because they can fix anything, you would likely end up with 4-5 colour decks.)
Ok, so look at the original Ravnica block. There were 10 2-colour fixers at common (well, plus the signets which was overkill). Anyway, the most common draft strategy in that environment? 3-colour decks.
Now look at Shards of Alara draft. This contained the Tri-Lands which are the topic of this thread. What did draft decks look like in that environment? Generally 4-5 colour decks. My experience was that 4-colour was actually most common, but I'm not going to split hairs on 5-colour here.
In fact, this leads to a corollary observation:
Once fixing is good enough for 4 colours, 5 colours is almost automatic.
I know someone will point out that in the current Return to Ravnica block draft 2-colour decks are the strongest strategy - that's fine, but the mana fixing was actually designed for 3 colours and if you're not highly disciplined then you will end up in 3 colours.
What does this all have to do with the thread? Well, really I'm just saying what everyone else is saying - that if you support Vivid and Tri-lands, and they make up any significant percentage of your cube, then you are pushing your environment into 4-5 colour decks. (I just took longer to say it).
For my own cube, I want the tension to be between 2- and 3- colour decks. For this reason, I mostly provide 2-colour fixers. The "rainbow" fixers that I provide are minimal and just meant to smooth things a little more - it's possible that it's correct to remove some of these (I'd like to keep City of Brass and Gemstone Mine at the least since they help enable 3-colour aggro). The strength of the 2-colour fixing, though (fetching other 2-colour fixers), means that I'm already worried about the strength of the mana, but there are enough 2-3 colour decks that so far I'm happy.
The reason that I want the tension between 2- and 3- colours is because this is where the greatest diversity lies: out of 32 possible colour combinations in a Magic deck, 10 of them are 2-colour and 10 of them are 3-colour. Combine this with the corollary from above that once 4-colour is easy, 5-colour usually also is, then what you get is an environment with very little need to make decisions about colour choice. Since I find those decisions to be interesting (at the most basic level of drafting) I want them in my environment. Plus, with this configuration and a few artifact/Green helpers, 4-5 colour decks are still possible and mono-colour decks are always possible - you just need to prioritise your picks according to what you're trying to do.
Finally, back to the answer I gave at the beginning of this post - why 10% fixing? I got to this number based on what I call "ideal mana". Basically, how many sources of each colour do you want in your deck, assuming it's not a splash colour? In a 60-card deck, my answer is about 16, since that gives you a 90% chance of having one in your opening hand. For a 40-card deck, I put it at about 10, which is 89% chance of having one in your opening hand. For a true 2-colour 40-card deck, then, for ideal mana I'd want 10 sources of each colour. Assuming I'm running 17 lands, I'd need 3 dual lands in my deck. With a 450 cube, with 8 players drafting, then on average I should have access to 3.2 of my 4 on-colour dual lands, plus the rainbow fixers, giving me at least a shot at my ideal mana. Sometimes there will be contention and I'll get fewer, sometimes I'll get all of my options and have even better mana. Sometimes they just won't show up in the draft. But I'm working to optimise the average case here.
Lands that count as being of every basic land type and thus tap for any color.
Quote from clozeone »
Such a small cube would benefit from being mostly colourless, I think.
I understand where both of you are coming from, and I don't doubt that either or both of these would make the micro-environment much easier to play.
The thing is, people Winston/Winchester draft their cubes all the time, and if those cubes weren't built specifically using these types of rules, then why should my isolated environment do so? What will I learn from the experiment if I make it specifically easy to cast everything?
To put it another way, I want to play normal games of Magic in a Limited environment, which typically requires players to make basic decisions related to the castability of the cards that they are putting into their decks. I'm willing to make some tools available to them to make this a little easier, but ideally I'd still like to require decisions and tradeoffs.
To put it yet another way - I guess I want to see whether the environment can work without doing these things. If it can't, then it might mean that drafting 100-card stacks is not where I want to be. To be fair, I've included a 10-card colourless section, flexible fixing and hybrid cards, so the line is blurry and a bit arbitrary, that's for sure. But I also know that in a simple set with basic/no fixing and very few artifacts people still usually run 2-3 colours. I just want to see whether you can do that and actually have distinct archetypes or whether the decks all end up being the same.
Quote from Ultimateer »
If Im reading the hybrid section correctly you need a U/B and a U/W card right?
Quote from Blind Piper »
I think Amadeus is aiming for hybrid, not straight multicolour, to make drafting easier. And the missing colours are WU, WB, and UG .
So, yeah. The hybrid section is the part that's least clear to me. I know that I want to include flexible cards here (e.g. hybrid and split) but I don't think that there are great ones for every guild. My ultimate goal is actually not necessarily to slavishly have one hybrid card per guild, so that's why I thought maybe including both Dryad Militant and Kitchen Finks would be fine so long as the total number of cards available to each colour ends up being balanced. It's not currently balanced, and the tricky one seems to be Blue.
Quote from Blind Piper »
Personally, I'd suggest Curse of Chains for WU, Stillmoon Cavalier for WB, and Snakeform for GU.
I thought of these. I actually had Judge's Familiar in there at one point. My problem is that this is an environment with cards like Jace, the Mind Sculptor in it, and generally I'm trying to include some of the best cards that each colour/section has to offer, while still maximising the flexibility. Cards like Curse of Chains and Snakeform may fit the bill, but neither myself nor most other cubes run these cards. I don't just want to "fill the slot" - I think with such a small environment, each slot needs to add value. Most of the other hybrid cards really are doing that - I think that the multitude of hybrid aggro 1-drops will help this environment immensely and maybe make it possible to actually draft an aggro deck.
Quote from Fredo »
Interesting thought experiment!
It occurred to me the other day when I was reading responses in another thread about small play groups. I like stuff like this. Anyway, I'm planning to do more than think about it, though - after updating my first draft, I'm hoping to build it and play it a couple of times next week.
Quote from Fredo »
I had some waiting to do today so I made my version.
Awesome. I was hoping others might take the bait.
I went with a 120 size because that's my preferred Winston stack size.
I've considered this as well. It may be a future step along the way. There really is very little space. It's all part of the challenge, though.
I like what you've done with the hybrid section and the other uneven sections to balance. I think I'll likely do the same (see comments above).
I'll be taking a closer look at your individual selections over the next day or two and will comment back. I may steal some of your ideas too, though there are definitely cards that I won't be able to include (e.g. Mind Twist, etc.).
I'm not sure how hard-core I think it's advisable to go on the reanimator theme - perhaps it's doable. I found that in the deck I drafted the other day in a real Winchester of my cube, just having Recurring Nightmare along with ramp, fatties and cards to put them in the graveyard was enough to give my deck a different feel. I'm not sure whether I would have played Entomb even if it was in my pool. Maybe I would have...I played Natural Order.
My Cube
My Blog
My Cube
My Blog
EDIT: It may also be worth mentioning that I'm on the verge of dropping my cube down to 360 from 450 - meaning that an individual card, like Moat, would turn up more frequently than it currently does.
My Cube
My Blog
Now, just to follow-on from this (and hoping I'm not breaking the forum rules), if the Strangleroot Geist dies while under my control, triggering the undying effect, it will return to play under my opponent's control because he's the "owner", correct?
Many thanks.
My Cube
My Blog
I have an untapped Adarkar Valkyrie in play and my opponent is attacking with Strangleroot Geist (could be any creature with undying though). (Attack was part of a larger swarm attack in case you're wondering why they'd attack here
What I think happens:
1. Opponent attacks. I setup to kill Strangleroot Geist either by declaring a blocker that will kill it or using a removal spell (in actual game used a blocker).
2. Before damage (or with removal spell on the stack), I tap Adarkar Valkyrie, targeting the Strangleroot Geist.
3. Strangleroot Geist dies, and both the triggered ability from Adarkar Valkyrie and the undying ability from Strangleroot Geist trigger. Because it's my opponent's turn, I think he gets priority first. So undying goes on the stack first, then the abilty from Valkyrie.
4. Valkyrie ability resolves, so Strangleroot Geist returns to play under my control, without any counters on it.
5. Undying resolves - or does it fizzle? This is where things really fall apart for me, if they haven't already above. If undying resolves, does the Strangleroot Geist return to my opponent with a +1/+1 counter, even though I controlled it momentarily?
Please correct any an all errors in my analysis.
Cheers!
My Cube
My Blog
1 Banishing Light
1 Dictate of Heliod
1 Master of Waves
1 Tidings
1 Gnarled Scarhide
1 Pain Seer
1 Ultimate Price
1 Sinkhole
1 Ophiomancer
1 Herald of Torment
1 Toxic Deluge
1 Reckless Reveler
1 Young Pyromancer
1 Gore-House Chainwalker
1 Prophetic Flamespeaker
1 Purphoros, God of the Forge
1 Shrine of Burning Rage
1 Rolling Earthquake
1 Sudden Demise
1 Nature's Lore
1 Curse of Predation
1 Polukranos, World Eater
1 Stunted Growth
1 Mortify
1 Grim Monolith
1 Basalt Monolith
1 Tangle Wire
1 Mana Confluence
1 Temporal Isolation
1 Conqueror's Pledge
1 Sphinx of Jwar Isle
1 Standstill
1 Despise
1 Carrion Feeder
1 Graveborn Muse
1 Puppeteer Clique
1 Dauthi Horror
1 Nantuko Shade
1 Dauthi Marauder
1 Hearth Kami
1 Keldon Vandals
1 Hell's Thunder
1 Smash to Smithereens
1 Slagstorm
1 Ember Swallower
1 Keldon Champion
1 Earthquake
1 Explore
1 Search for Tomorrow
1 Growth Spasm
1 Rampaging Baloths
1 Obzedat, Ghost Council
1 Fellwar Stone
1 Prismatic Lens
1 Pristine Talisman
1 Razormane Masticore
In the past, I've really struggled to make cuts, but I didn't find it too difficult this time. Some of the additions, I'm sure, won't be long term staples (Dictate of Heliod?) and some of the cuts could be undone in the future (Earthquake?) but I'm pretty happy for now.
Dictate of Heliod is included because I am trying to push the "swarm" archetype (often referred to as "tokens") based in White, and this card is very good in that deck.
Other than that, I'm always interested in thoughts and feedback on changes.
Conspiracy and likely M15 will be on my radar next, though I'm not currently looking at including the special "as you draft this" cards from Conspiracy - just not up my alley and we cube infrequently so I don't feel the need to add that additional layer of complexity (though I can see how it would be a fun diversion for frequent drafters).
EDIT: I should also mention that I found it useful to compare my cube with the "average cubes" (in this case the Cube Tutor 450) on cubetutor.com. I don't necessarily agree with all of the average decisions, but it really helped point out cards that perhaps other people are cutting that I should consider for my short list.
My Cube
My Blog
I chose a different tack, wanting to create a cube-like singleton experience. For Innistrad block, I acquired one copy of every card, including rare and mythic rare. The problem with this approach is that rares do not provide the same kinds of effects that you usually find at common and uncommon. So, while there is usually some kind of removal at rare, most of the removal in a block is actually at common and uncommon. The net effect is a paucity of removal in the kind of cube mentioned above. Compounding this is the fact that many of the things that you can do at rare are relatively powerful, so you end up with decks that can do powerful things and can rarely be disrupted by the opponent.
There is one other thing that bothered me about this approach - cost. There are usually a handful of very good rares in a set and they can be expensive. On top of that, if you think including Bog Hoodlums is a waste, try spending actual money on Elbrus, the Binding Blade. Yuck. And of course this just compounds across all of the rares.
So, I eventually decided to just scale back to "peasant" - i.e. just commons and uncommons. While this does, of course, omit some powerful cards that actually do turn up in draft/sealed/league, I find that it is more faithful to the "feel" of the limited environment than the rares-included singleton approach.
I have done this now for Innistrad and Return to Ravnica blocks, went back and did it for Scars of Mirrodin since I already had most of the cards, and am now collecting all of my Theros cards from multiple leagues to do it again. I have thought of going back through my collection to see what else I can piece together - I should be able to do Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block(s) (either separately or together) and Shards of Alara. I didn't draft much Zendikar and don't feel like dropping cash on that.
It should be noted that the singleton approach does have the effect at times of changing the value/power level of some cards. In particular, not being able to get multiples of the same card can make certain strategies less effective. For example, in Theros block, I'll only have one copy of Gray Merchant of Asphodel. In this case, the card itself isn't any worse, but strategies looking to do this kind of thing will need other reasons - they can't rely on 2-3 copies of the centrepiece card. Overall, the feel is more like the full-block draft experience since you have fewer opportunities for multiples in that environment.
And one other thing - the environment can be negatively affected when WotC doesn't continue themes all the way through the set. For example, in Innistrad block, the werewolf deck is significantly worse in my configuration when I include Avacyn Restored...oh, well.
My Cube
My Blog
1 Imposing Sovereign
1 Unexpectedly Absent
1 Spear of Heliod
1 Elspeth, Sun's Champion
1 True-Name Nemesis
1 Jace, Architect of Thought
1 Tormented Hero
1 Blood Scrivener
1 Curse of Shallow Graves
1 Hero's Downfall
1 Firedrinker Satyr
1 Ember Swallower
1 Lightning Strike
1 Chandra, Pyromaster
1 Elvish Mystic
1 Sylvan Caryatid
1 Kalonian Hydra
1 Deathrite Shaman
1 Steam Augury
1 Nearheath Pilgrim
1 Stormfront Pegasus
1 Calciderm
1 Kor Haven
1 Inkwell Leviathan
1 Jace, Memory Adept
1 Knight of Infamy
1 Vampire Interloper
1 Kokusho, the Evening Star
1 Black Sun's Zenith
1 Spikeshot Elder
1 Ember Hauler
1 Whipflare
1 Ghitu Encampment
1 Overgrown Battlement
1 Somberwald Sage
1 Harrow
1 Lotleth Troll
1 Prophetic Bolt
EDIT: Somewhere along the way, I seem to have swapped in Garruk Relentless for Ohran Viper. I'll include this change in this update, since it's not already in my change log. I shouldn't do that...it's the first time that's ever happened. I guess I've just been too busy this year.
My Cube
My Blog
The best pair with White, as has already been said, is Red for reach from burn. But Red doesn't have a lot of great 1-drops, so White has to carry the burden in this area. Hence, this card is a welcome addition.
There are several cards from this set that I am considering and will likely include, but this is my first auto-slam (well, planeswalkers are likely but not urgent - this guy is).
My Cube
My Blog
I think "swarm" theme is a more appropriate term than "token" theme for what I support in my cube. Cards like Blade Splicer are more cubable in general than straight token cards, though of course the good token cards (Spectral Procession, Lingering Souls, etc.) are always welcome. Anyway, because of this, I like the anthems that just hit all creatures you control, not just tokens or White creatures, etc. So this is a great fit.
The extra ability might be handy in those awkward times when you have an anthem on the board and no creatures 'cause they all been kilt.
My Cube
My Blog
I missed Vessel of Endless Rest at uncommon, but that's about it. I understand why you chose AVR - I guess my only point was that I agree you're correct that the average limited environment has fewer difficult-to-cast cards, but it's also worth noting that it generally has far less fixing as well.
Basically, to make things easier to cast, you can choose cards that are easier to cast, add more fixing, or some mix of both. At some point, there is a tradeoff with how easy it is to run 2, 3, 4 or even 5 colours in your deck and the associated need to identify "castability" as a factor in the power level of your deck in limited and prioritise picks accordingly.
Back to the original point of this thread, I personally believe that, in large quantities, cards like the Tri-Lands and Vivid Lands make it too easy to get 3+ colour decks while simultaneously favouring the slower midrange and control decks that can simply run any powerful card from any colour if they survive to turn 3-4 to get their mana sorted. While it is the prerogative of the cube designer, I personally find it more interesting and enjoyable to be forced to make decisions.
Understood. I agree that the CC cards are a problem. Obviously I agree that having more fixing available can make it easier to cast those. But as I've banged on about probably enough, I believe that brings with it other, in my view negative, consequences to the draft environment. Therefore I think that if you're running CC drops, then your deck should really be A/b, rather than truly A/B. That way, you can maybe have 12-13 sources of White to cast your knight, and run fewer sources of your second colour and focus on mid-late game threats in that colour. Again, it all comes down to whether you want to encourage decision making and tradeoffs at this level or simply allow everyone to live the dream.
Ah - I see. So it doesn't take into account the number of commons/uncommons/rares in the set to determine how frequently a particular card will actually appear in a draft on average. When I add this in, each common appears 2.4 times, each uncommon 1.2 times and each rare 0.4 times in an "average" draft. using these ratios I get 6:3:1, so I would multiply the commons only by 6 rather than 10. (EDIT: for the sake of completion, if you want to take Mythic Rares into account as well, then the ratios are 12:6:2:1. This assumes a typical large set containing 101 commons, 60 uncommons, 53 rares and 15 mythic rares. Avacyn Restored is one such "typcial" set, as are all of the core sets M10 through M13 and reportedly M14 as well).
My Cube
My Blog
Interesting analsysis and choices.
1. This is good analysis that I think will be useful for deeper examination of my cube. It might be the kind of thing to add to the wishlist over on the cubetutor thread - I've checked it out but haven't posted my feature requests yet.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the analysis was relevant to my comparison to limited; my point about the hypothetical set containing guildgates and common fetches was simply to illustrate the relative frequency of appearance of a card in a draft and to give a feel for how easy or difficult it should be to get fixing in an "average" draft.
3. The specific example that you chose was Avacyn Restored - it's an interesting choice because it's also worth noting that the only land-based fixing in that set is Cavern of Souls at Rare; there's also no artifact-based fixing. So, basically, outside of Green, there is no fixing whatsoever. As you've illustrated, there's likewise no CC two-drops at common or uncommon and only one at rare. For the most part, there are actually very few of these difficult casting costs as you mention - but there is also pretty much no fixing available either.
4. If I understand your final analysis correctly, you're saying that across the board, in your cube, if you have 10 sources of the appropriate coloured mana for a given card, then 13 percent of the time you won't have the correct mana. Is that correct? If so, I have no problem with that number. If you want to run a number of CC two-drops, or whatever, then you need to look to draft more fetches, go after the rainbow fixers, etc. But otherwise, that number seems appropriate to me.
EDIT: Just a specific question about your analysis. In looking at AVR, you have identified that there are 20 commons with C casting cost, 4 at uncommon and 4 at rare. In your Aggregated section, you indicate 216 one-drops. How did you come up with this number? (I've tried a couple of different things but get different numbers).
My Cube
My Blog
Agreed. That's why I said "and they make up any significant percentage of your cube" - putting a few rainbow fixers in is going to smooth out the mana and not break things. It's when getting that kind of fixing is easy that things will tend to warp to 4-5 colour. In both Lorwyn and Shards of Alara draft, these cards were uncommon and at that frequency drafting many colours was pretty easy to do.
Also - disciplined drafters can stay two-colour anytime. I'm just going on what the average player is going to do.
Yes, I'm referring specifically to mana-fixing lands. This doesn't count any artifact fixing, though my cube is extremely light on this, nor does it count all of Green's fixing.
Yeah, I see that. But that's part of drafting - prioritizing picks (land, cards that are easier to cast, primary vs. secondary colour, etc.). In any event, fetchlands actually do a lot of work here as well to even things out. Players that prioritize fixing and taking "off-colour" fetchlands can have access to more virtual copies of their on-colour duals.
Would I consider maybe going up to a fifth set of duals? Maybe if they're on the power level of the big 3, but even as it currently stands I've had complaints. I sometimes get the drafters to voluntarily answer a few simple questions. In response to the question "What did you like least about the cube draft experience?" I've received the answer "Too many nonbasic lands." So, while I understand that more fixing is great, so is more cards that you can actually cast, and it turns out that mana fixing isn't considered that exciting by some drafters. I personally like to prioritize it but I think that drafters should have to stretch just a little to make their mana work - shouldn't be too easy.
EDIT: Looking at it a different way, you can use Cube Rarity. In a 450-card cube, a card or effect is "common" if there are 3 copies. Since I have 4 on-colour fixers per guild, "duals" for each guild occur slightly more frequently than a common would in a traditional booster draft. 5 rainbow fixers is almost an additional 2 commons.
So, imagine a booster draft of a traditional large set (229 cards not including basic lands). Imagine if that set contained all 10 guildgates at common, plus Terramorphic Expanse and Evolving Wilds, also at common. The land-based fixing levels that I've recommended for cube are a little better than this, and of course of much higher quality and flexibility given fetchlands.
My Cube
My Blog
Something to keep in mind with mana fixing is what I call the "+1 rule". Basically, whatever fixing you provide in bulk will tend to encourage the number of colours it fixes plus one.
For example, take a simple set with no fixing and run an 8-player draft. What fixing do you have? I said "none", but really you have basic lands, so that's effectively 1-colour fixing. How many colours do drafters tend to play? Of course, they can play whatever they like, but the most common configuration is 2 colours.
Now, take that same set and add in Terramorphic Expanse. It only takes up one common slot, but because it can fix any colour, how is it most often used? In my experience, it is most often used to splash a third colour, not just make your 2-colour deck stronger. Of course, as always, it can be used this way but the tendency is to go +1. (Note that if there were as many Terramorphic Expanses in such a draft as there are guild gates, then, because they can fix anything, you would likely end up with 4-5 colour decks.)
Ok, so look at the original Ravnica block. There were 10 2-colour fixers at common (well, plus the signets which was overkill). Anyway, the most common draft strategy in that environment? 3-colour decks.
Now look at Shards of Alara draft. This contained the Tri-Lands which are the topic of this thread. What did draft decks look like in that environment? Generally 4-5 colour decks. My experience was that 4-colour was actually most common, but I'm not going to split hairs on 5-colour here.
In fact, this leads to a corollary observation:
Once fixing is good enough for 4 colours, 5 colours is almost automatic.
I know someone will point out that in the current Return to Ravnica block draft 2-colour decks are the strongest strategy - that's fine, but the mana fixing was actually designed for 3 colours and if you're not highly disciplined then you will end up in 3 colours.
What does this all have to do with the thread? Well, really I'm just saying what everyone else is saying - that if you support Vivid and Tri-lands, and they make up any significant percentage of your cube, then you are pushing your environment into 4-5 colour decks.
For my own cube, I want the tension to be between 2- and 3- colour decks. For this reason, I mostly provide 2-colour fixers. The "rainbow" fixers that I provide are minimal and just meant to smooth things a little more - it's possible that it's correct to remove some of these (I'd like to keep City of Brass and Gemstone Mine at the least since they help enable 3-colour aggro). The strength of the 2-colour fixing, though (fetching other 2-colour fixers), means that I'm already worried about the strength of the mana, but there are enough 2-3 colour decks that so far I'm happy.
The reason that I want the tension between 2- and 3- colours is because this is where the greatest diversity lies: out of 32 possible colour combinations in a Magic deck, 10 of them are 2-colour and 10 of them are 3-colour. Combine this with the corollary from above that once 4-colour is easy, 5-colour usually also is, then what you get is an environment with very little need to make decisions about colour choice. Since I find those decisions to be interesting (at the most basic level of drafting) I want them in my environment. Plus, with this configuration and a few artifact/Green helpers, 4-5 colour decks are still possible and mono-colour decks are always possible - you just need to prioritise your picks according to what you're trying to do.
Finally, back to the answer I gave at the beginning of this post - why 10% fixing? I got to this number based on what I call "ideal mana". Basically, how many sources of each colour do you want in your deck, assuming it's not a splash colour? In a 60-card deck, my answer is about 16, since that gives you a 90% chance of having one in your opening hand. For a 40-card deck, I put it at about 10, which is 89% chance of having one in your opening hand. For a true 2-colour 40-card deck, then, for ideal mana I'd want 10 sources of each colour. Assuming I'm running 17 lands, I'd need 3 dual lands in my deck. With a 450 cube, with 8 players drafting, then on average I should have access to 3.2 of my 4 on-colour dual lands, plus the rainbow fixers, giving me at least a shot at my ideal mana. Sometimes there will be contention and I'll get fewer, sometimes I'll get all of my options and have even better mana. Sometimes they just won't show up in the draft. But I'm working to optimise the average case here.
My Cube
My Blog
I understand where both of you are coming from, and I don't doubt that either or both of these would make the micro-environment much easier to play.
The thing is, people Winston/Winchester draft their cubes all the time, and if those cubes weren't built specifically using these types of rules, then why should my isolated environment do so? What will I learn from the experiment if I make it specifically easy to cast everything?
To put it another way, I want to play normal games of Magic in a Limited environment, which typically requires players to make basic decisions related to the castability of the cards that they are putting into their decks. I'm willing to make some tools available to them to make this a little easier, but ideally I'd still like to require decisions and tradeoffs.
To put it yet another way - I guess I want to see whether the environment can work without doing these things. If it can't, then it might mean that drafting 100-card stacks is not where I want to be. To be fair, I've included a 10-card colourless section, flexible fixing and hybrid cards, so the line is blurry and a bit arbitrary, that's for sure. But I also know that in a simple set with basic/no fixing and very few artifacts people still usually run 2-3 colours. I just want to see whether you can do that and actually have distinct archetypes or whether the decks all end up being the same.
So, yeah. The hybrid section is the part that's least clear to me. I know that I want to include flexible cards here (e.g. hybrid and split) but I don't think that there are great ones for every guild. My ultimate goal is actually not necessarily to slavishly have one hybrid card per guild, so that's why I thought maybe including both Dryad Militant and Kitchen Finks would be fine so long as the total number of cards available to each colour ends up being balanced. It's not currently balanced, and the tricky one seems to be Blue.
I thought of these. I actually had Judge's Familiar in there at one point. My problem is that this is an environment with cards like Jace, the Mind Sculptor in it, and generally I'm trying to include some of the best cards that each colour/section has to offer, while still maximising the flexibility. Cards like Curse of Chains and Snakeform may fit the bill, but neither myself nor most other cubes run these cards. I don't just want to "fill the slot" - I think with such a small environment, each slot needs to add value. Most of the other hybrid cards really are doing that - I think that the multitude of hybrid aggro 1-drops will help this environment immensely and maybe make it possible to actually draft an aggro deck.
Awesome. I was hoping others might take the bait.
I've considered this as well. It may be a future step along the way. There really is very little space. It's all part of the challenge, though.
I like what you've done with the hybrid section and the other uneven sections to balance. I think I'll likely do the same (see comments above).
I'll be taking a closer look at your individual selections over the next day or two and will comment back. I may steal some of your ideas too, though there are definitely cards that I won't be able to include (e.g. Mind Twist, etc.).
I'm not sure how hard-core I think it's advisable to go on the reanimator theme - perhaps it's doable. I found that in the deck I drafted the other day in a real Winchester of my cube, just having Recurring Nightmare along with ramp, fatties and cards to put them in the graveyard was enough to give my deck a different feel. I'm not sure whether I would have played Entomb even if it was in my pool. Maybe I would have...I played Natural Order.
My Cube
My Blog