MTG Salvation

While I think every other year will yield more change in data, I think every year is fun and nice to have more up to date for newer cubers.

I

I like the idea of doing the Power Rankings every year so that we don't lose momentum with it. Plus, there were significant changes between 2014 and 2015, and some great cards have come out in the past few blocks, so I think there will be some changes this year as well.

Do we want to include Conspiracy 2? Kaladesh?

I'd say we should only include sets that have been out for at least a month before we start to make sure most people get the chance to get some drafting in with the cards from that set. If we were to start today, hypothetically, we'd include EMN but not Conspiracy 2 or Kaladesh.

Is there a volunteer for leading this project?

I'd be willing to split the duties with someone else, anyone else willing to share?

maybe every 18 months now (since standard rotates on 18 months now).

We started the last Power Rankings at the end of April, so if we started right now it'd actually be 17 months.

I would like to see another Project Rank Everything where we literally rank the top X for each casting cost in each color. I don't believe one of those has been ran since 2010. I'm sure that looks very different today.

I wasn't around for this last time, but this sounds like a great idea. It sounds like a massive undertaking, but I'm willing to volunteer to help with this and the Power Rankings. I'd say we should do the Power Rankings first, though, and save PRE till afterwards.

Can someone help me? I'm looking for a new cube list to put together, and I need some help to find a good one.

Specifically, I'd like a cube that:
-can support 10+ drafters, as we often have 8-10
-has little/no fast mana (cards that produce more mana than they cost), because the people I draft with like modern magic and don't like playing with broken combos every draft
-has no draft-luck cards (e.g. Lurking Automaton, which is worthless if you get it before pick 5-ish but amazing after pick 8), because I want to reduce luck and emphasize skill*
-has multiple first-pickable cards per pack (this may be true in every cube, but e.g. Sword of Body and Mind and 14 of non-S-class cards is no contest)
-every card in the cube has a purpose. So e.g. no Sigil of the Empty Throne without enchantment support (especially repeatable enchantments for that card), or Manamorphose without Storm, because I want people to trust they can get an archetype if a card says that archetype matters
-has interactive archetypes, e.g. Black aggro and not Storm, because people I draft with greatly prefer interactive games to non
-has archetypes and cards with balanced power levels (based on any criteri), if possible, so drafting the open strategy doesn't put you in a losing position (again, to emphasize skill and not luck)**

If anyone knows a cube like that, please point me to it.



*has anyone tried Sovereign's Realm in your cube? If so, how was it?
** if there's a better way to emphasize skill or just make a better/more fun cube, I'm open to that

^ Sounds like you're looking for a pretty "standard" unpowered cube in the 450-540 range, i.e. good aggro support without the Power 9 or "cube power" (Library of Alexandria, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault & the like). If you're being strict with the "no card that produce more mana than they cost" rule you'd have to also take away Chrome Mox and Mox Diamond from the basic unpowered list (but those cards are pretty fair in that you lose a card if you want to use them).

The problem here is that it's hard to know where exactly you set the bar when it comes to first-pickable-ness or interactiveness or whether games are luck-based or not. There's always an element of luck in Magic, and a card being first-pickable in a cube, even one with the Swords, really depends on a lot of factors (IMHO the Swords can be too slow in aggro, and they're completely unnecessary in control and combo, so I don't consider them nearly as flexible as picks as some do). I'm going to answer assuming you might consider some combo archetypes as uninteractive:

I can't recall any particular unpowered list without some combo cards some could consider uninteractive, but removing those doesn't really necessitate that much tweaking. You could check the CubeTutor unpowered average cubes, or really any well-balanced unpowered cube from these forums, and swap some cards. (Or you could take the cube Chirdaki, the "Unpopular Cube Opinions" guy from /r/mtgcube has: http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/1001. This is a bit different and the cube manager at least states that he tries to keep the cube as competitive as possible with as few "high variance" cards as possible.)

You just take away the combo cards, and e.g. in the case of the fatty cheat deck swap some of the fatties out for more reasonable ramp targets. You can replace the combo cards themselves with some general utility cards, e.g. some more card draw or some quirky creature for blue instead of Show and Tell, an extra planeswalker or modal spell or maybe Outpost Siege for red instead of Sneak Attack. Same with black reanimation, swap the spells for some more value, or maybe Pox, Smallpox etc. for a different archetype. You take away the "unpowered" fast mana such as the two fair Moxen and Grim Monolith and replace them with some random value artifacts or help them make room for the signets if you want to run those.

YMMV, but I think an unpowered cube needs some combo possibilities - not Storm of course, Storm is absolutely woeful even in powered, but some sort of cheaty options. Aggro in unpowered can be almost as good as in powered since aggro doesn't benefit that much from the unfair colorless ramp in any case (aggro has huge demand for colored mana). The lack of unfair colorless mana hits control and midrange more, and aggro can just bulldoze over the control player that's waiting to make their 4th land drop and draw a Wrath. But if you add a couple of ways for the slower decks to get a fast win, you level the playing field a bit. And the lack of fast mana artifacts makes Tinker absolutely fair in my book.

The point of skill and fun is really subjective. The last time me and my group drafted my 540 unpowered, I had a lot of fun reanimating Myr Battlesphere on turn 2, granted my BG midrange opponent wasn't exactly thrilled. You could say it didn't require any skill, but neither does T1 Goblin Guide, T2 Ash Zealot, T3 Sulfuric Vortex - and I'd say drafting and building either of those decks does require skill. Actually, the point about interactivity and its relation to fun and skill is also pretty hard, since there can be a lot of really interactive games where the outcome has been decided many turns before the game actually ends. Games in formats with bad removal, lots of creatures and no combo (Standard) can take a huge amount of turns and involve lots of decisions, but it's not a given that most of those decisions mean anything in the grand scheme of things. And even in powered, there are often ways to interact with ridiculous starts. T1 Island, Mana Crypt into Tinker a Blightsteel Colossus? Path to Exile. Do what you feel is fun for you and/or your group.

Finally, I'm a newbie when it comes to managing a cube, so you can and should take everything I've said here with a grain of salt.

Absolutely perfect response! Thank you very much. Unless someone has a counterpoint, I might just try the cube you linked unchanged.

Glad I could help. Note that Chirdaki has a few pretty unconventional card choices such as Frostburn Weird and a blue/black devotion package. Also, the cube doesn't support some combo decks as much as other cubes, e.g. there is just one Wildfire instead of Wildfire plus Burning of Xinye. That said, FWIW he has tested the cube a lot and he's explained his design philosophy pretty well on Reddit if you want to understand the cube better.

My top 20 article for Kaladesh is up, here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/articles-podcasts-and-guides/757458-set-p-review-my-top-20-kaladesh-cards-for-the

Please stop in and leave a comment!

Many thanks to Allred123 for volunteering to help me with the Power Rankings for this year! We have been discussing it via PM over the past week, and we've come up with a tentative schedule for voting as well as a spreadsheet for tabulating the votes. I'll be putting up the initial post for discussion of categorization and other issues on October 1st, and we'll begin the voting white cards on October 9th,, with 4-5 days per category depending on whether or not the last day falls on a weekend. Voting will include all cards released up to and including Kaladesh. Here's the tentative schedule:


For the most part we will be following the format and categorization spelled out by willdice in 2015, which built on Silent Edge's work in previous years, but we're open to suggestions for changes.

Some potential changes we should discuss as a community:

Last year, there was a spirited debate over whether or not Un-cards, Conspiracies, and draft-matters cards (e.g. Cogwork Librarian and Paliano, the High City) should be voted on alongside their more traditional counterparts or in a separate vote. We should come to a decision on this before voting begins for this year as to whether or not to create a new category for non-traditional cards, whether or not to include them in the Overall top 30, as well as where exactly to draw the line.

Allred123 suggests separating the Fate Reforged tri-brids (e.g. Warden of the First Tree) from Shards/Wedges and voting on them as mono-colored cards based on their casting cost.

If anyone has any other suggestions for potential changes to this year's Power Rankings, please let me know so that I can mention them in the opening thread for discussion. Thanks again to Allred123 for volunteering to help with this, I'm looking forward to this year's edition of the Power Rankings.

It would be nice to have a defined statement for what power is, and specifically have it be "best overall cards" or something instead of "Best first picks." If I remember correctly that was a point of confusion/frustration last year.

Most importantly, thanks for being an awesome part of this community Spike Rogue.

Great news!

I've been advocating for the last couple cycles to change the metric from "top P1P1 cards" to overall "favorite" cube cards from each section ...allowing players to vote on whatever cards they consider to be their "best" (or favorite) cards, regardless of metric. I think it removes the pressure of having to rank strictly on P1P1 choices (which winds up collecting a lot of "generic goodstuff" anyways, even if they're mediocre P1P1 choices) and I think that giving the voters the choice to place cards on the list wherever they like removes a lot of the contentious debates and leaves for a more open voting format. Players can vote for whichever cards they consider to be the best cards, regardless of what metric they want to apply to how they came up with their list. This balances P1P1 build-around cards, generically powerful cards, group favorites and any other metric you want to measure the cards by to all be legitimate cards for having a card make the list. Just ask players to rank the best cards, and leave it up to them to determine how they decide which ones make the list.

Awesome news! Thanks Spike Rogue and Allred for doing this.

I think the tribids should count as three color, not color of casting cost. I also think that lands that require a color to do their thing (Faerie Conclave for example) should count as a card of that color.

I'm kinda neutral on the P1P1 vs. most powerful/favorite criteria. As long as the criteria is spelled out, I think I'll be able to live with whatever the consensus is.

I strongly think the Un-cards and such should be kept separate.

Cheers,
rant

I already gave green light to Spike Rogue over MP for taking over the Rankings, and I'll give the support and advice that I can.

The Fate Reforged "tribrids" (and others like Wild Nacatl and Viashino Slaughtermaster) should still be considered as having three colors. But I'd change the voting for shards and wedges into a single Top 10 or Top 20 with all cards that are three or more colors. Most of last year's ten Top 3s were useless.

I strongly disagree with the common notion around here that Conspiracies and draft-altering cards are lumped together with un-cards. But if that's how most cubes work, I'll vote accordingly.

Quote from rantipole »

Awesome news! Thanks Spike Rogue and Allred for doing this.

I think the tribids should count as three color, not color of casting cost. I also think that lands that require a color to do their thing (Faerie Conclave for example) should count as a card of that color.

I'm kinda neutral on the P1P1 vs. most powerful/favorite criteria. As long as the criteria is spelled out, I think I'll be able to live with whatever the consensus is.

I strongly think the Un-cards and such should be kept separate.

All of this, seconded.

Seriously, though, thanks, Spike Rogue!

I'm glad to see everyone's enthusiasm and passion for this project!

OK, it looks like there's quite a bit to discuss. I'm glad we're taking a bit of extra time to discuss this.

My takes so far:

I think the tribids should count as three color, not color of casting cost.

I'm inclined to agree should we evaluate these cards based on their activated abilities as well as their casting cost. Soulfire Grand Master may make the cut in a mono-white deck as a lifelinking bear, but it's at its best in a Jeskai deck, so we should evaluate it as such. People can categorize these as they wish in their individual cubes, but I don't see any reason to change the standard on this.

I also think that lands that require a color to do their thing (Faerie Conclave for example) should count as a card of that color.

This is how it was done last year, and it was explicitly spelled out in the Lands voting thread, but not the opening post for the 2015 rankings. I'll mention this in both threads year.

I'd change the voting for shards and wedges into a single Top 10 or Top 20 with all cards that are three or more colors.

I like this idea, too many 3 color combinations have absolutely nothing worth considering, and few cube managers bother with including one of each combination. This would also give us a category to rank 4-5 color cards like Progenitus and the Nephilim. Plus, it won't matter for this year's Rankings, but Commander 2016 will probably bring us a lot of 4-color cards, so it would be good to have a procedure in place for ranking them for next year. I think everyone should be able to come up with at least ten 3+ color cards to rank, and cap it at 20, kind of like how we did 3-5 for each Shard and Wedge.

Speaking of color categorization, how should we handle the C cost cards from OGW? Should we just lump them in with the colorless cards, or does someone have a better idea?

I strongly think the Un-cards and such should be kept separate.

I don't think a separate Un/Conspiracy card metric provides information that's particularly useful. Knowing that, say, Backup Plan is a better card than Chaos Confetti doesn't say anything about how good either card is in the context of cube. The fact that Backup Plan is a strong enough card to be drafted P1P1 over Jace, the Mindsculptor and Sword of Fire and Ice, and Wurmcoil Engine is a metric worth being aware of even for cube managers who might prefer to exclude it due to flavor considerations. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to vote for them at all if they are cards that they would not pick in a draft, and I think it's OK that the lower ranking they end up with than pure power warrants reflects some members' disdain for this type of card. However, this project is meant to evaluate the most powerful cards in print for cube based on this community's judgment and experience with these cards. Quite a few people are running these cards either in their cubes or in a separate module, and when they're drafting they will never ever open a pack that consists entirely of Un/Conspiracy cards, so it's worth considering how they fit into the larger context of cube.

I've been advocating for the last couple cycles to change the metric from "top P1P1 cards" to overall "favorite" cube cards from each section ...allowing players to vote on whatever cards they consider to be their "best" (or favorite) cards, regardless of metric.

I've actually thought the P1P1 metric is quite elegant, as it requires us to balance raw power vs. versatility in a context we're all quite familiar with. I'm open to the possibility of changing the standard for voting on and ranking cards, but I'm not sure how meaningful our votes will be if we're not even clarifying what the metric is that we're voting on. However, since wtwlf123 is clearly not alone on wanting to change the standard, we should definitely discuss it to determine what that should be.

Just to be clear, I'm not making final decisions on anything right now, I'm just trying to gauge what changes should be discussed in the opening thread. I will include all suggestions for changes from 2015 in that post as well as a summary of any pro/con discussion that happens here. If it looks like we cannot come to a consensus on a point (as I think may be the case with the Un/Conspiracy categorization), I'll create a separate thread with a poll for it.

The biggest issue with the P1P1 metric is the lack of accountability. One person could be using that metric specifically, and another voter may just be throwing their favorite cards on a list. It won't change things dramatically, but it allows voters the freedom to put what they consider to be the best cube cards of that respective color on the list, regardless of how strict or loose they are with the metrics being used to determine them. It also makes the voting a little more relaxed. There always seems to be voters that are worried about casting votes because their lists look different, or responses like "really? You'd P1P1 that?" ...this new way of voting would eliminate all that.

Lastly, there honestly aren't 20 cards in each section worth first-picking. So the top 7-13 cards matter, and the rest of the slots are just filled in with generic goodstuff cards. Which are powerful, but probably aren't accurate representations of what should be taken as your first pick in the draft. By changing the metric to "best", each voter can use whatever metric they want to determine that. Be it P1P1-ability, synergy, power, fun-factor, MD% ...it's all valid.

Just my $0.02

I like keeping it as P1P1 for the ranking as that way we aren't having someone saying Squire as the #1 white card because its their favorite ever card to draft. I know that is an extreme example but I would rather have a list of the most powerful cards and not a list of everyones favorites. Favorites isn't really that useful for information.

I also think that if we decide on voting using a certain metric then everyone should follow it instead of just doing what they want as there was an issue with that last time where people were openly voting using different metrics just because they wanted to.

Lastly, Uncards and Conspiracy cards not being included reduces the point of it considering what we are trying to achieve. Just because you don't use a card in your cube doesn't mean it isn't a powerful card. I don't own or run Ravages of War just because I haven't gotten one yet but that doesn't mean I won't include it in my rankings. My personal situation with certain cards does not take away from my ability to rank them properly.

People ignore the metrics anyways. And voting for "best" allows players to use multiple metrics to determine it. I think we'll get more accurate information that way, especially since most of the common top-rated cards don't necessarily make for good P1P1 cards anyways. It doesn't have to be "favorites", but I think we'll get better and more accurate results with a "best" vote, allowing players to determine their own metrics (since they're using them anyways).

Frankly I don't think it *really* matters what we choose. Personally I've never looked at any of these lists and been like "this is ridiculous and is not helpful at all." And frankly, no matter WHAT metric we choose, there will be some number of people doing whatever they want, a fact that we just have to accept. Of course there is a change of tone/etc. depending on what is chosen, but at the end of the day the list will be the list and it will be great and we're not idiots so we'll make it work.

However, not including uncards or conspiracy cards seems wrong. As others have said, what good are these lists if they don't actively reflect the possibilities that you could have within your cube? The metric IMO is less important than inclusion/exclusion of cards to choose from.

As an aside, at first I agreed with the not enough cards for top 20 p1p1, but looking at past lists a lot of the colors do have pretty full top 20s. Even our rankings from 2014 (http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-card-and-archetype/558915-power-rankings-2014-cube-power-rankings#) still stand the test of time in terms of P1P1 quality. Of course some colors have some reaches in them, but not embarrassing by any means. If I'm misunderstanding how that 2014 list was done so be it, but worth considering if not.

I think this would change things very dramatically, to the point where I'm not sure what the rankings would even mean if the standard is nothing clearer than the cards we like best in cubes. What you're suggesting doesn't even reference the power of the cards anymore, so it doesn't even sound like it should be called the Power Rankings at that point. The most obvious example is the top cards for powered cubes. Since I do not run the Power 9, Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, and other fast mana I wouldn't vote for them on any top 20 list of favorite cards as I choose not to even run them. We have cube managers on this forum who prefer deliberately underpowered lists, their overall 30 favorite cards would look even more different from previous Power Rankings than mine. However, if the metric is cards I would consider most highly as a drafter who is trying to win a draft I respect the power of the Power 9, etc. enough to make an honest effort to evaluate where they belong on the Power Rankings.

Lastly, there honestly aren't 20 cards in each section worth first-picking. So the top 5-10 cards matter, and the rest of the slots are just filled in with generic goodstuff cards. Which are powerful, but probably aren't accurate representations of what should be taken as your first pick in the draft.

I guess I've always seen the P1P1 metric as just shorthand for the most important cards to have in your cube if power level matters to you. We're not trying to establish a Frank Karsten style pick order list for competitive drafting, after all, this is a theoretical exercise for cube designers who want a high power level in their cubes. I'd also say that even the #20 card in each color from last year's Power Rankings (Catastrophe, Venser, Shaper Savant, Hymn to Tourach, Siege-Gang Commander, and Nissa Worldwaker) is a card that a spikey drafter would be happy to see pick 3-5 in their first pack if they're remotely interested in those colors, as well as a card most cube managers would consider staples based on their power level.

There is probably a compromise, like "Top Cards", "Most Powerful Cards", something like that which doesn't imply P1P1 but also doesn't imply choices due to personal preference and not considering power level. Like, it would be insane for someone to imply that Sol Ring or Mana Crypt is not a top card, but I could totally understand someone not voting for those as a favorite for the reasons you state. Something like Power Ranking w/o the P1P1 metric attached would be enough.

I guess what it comes down to is that if a user is going to vote for something clearly not top 20 as a top 20 card because it's a favorite, then no matter what we choose their votes probably wouldn't be helpful, so it's probably better to keep it to powerful/best so that's represented vs. a P1P1 metric where 80% do it the right way and 20% do it their own way and it's all ****ed because of that.

Quote from Spike Rogue »

I guess I've always seen the P1P1 metric as just shorthand for the most important cards to have in your cube if power level matters to you.

Which is exactly why we should remove the metric. That's how a lot of people vote, and it has nothing at all to do with a card's P1P1 value. Half the cards that make the lists by every voter (myself included) are terrible P1P1 cards, but they're all great cube cards. There's a big difference, and I think we should just clarify for the first time that players should vote on what they consider the "best" cards to be, with P1P1 value being only one of the many metrics that should go into creating such a list.

Quote from Salmo »

There is probably a compromise, like "Top Cards", "Most Powerful Cards", something like that which doesn't imply P1P1 but also doesn't imply choices due to personal preference and not considering power level.

My suggestion would be "best" cards ...and letting the voter balance all the metrics they can apply to come up with the list. It incorporates everything that makes a cube card good; P1P1 value, synergy, intrinsic powerlevel, MD%, cube importance ...all the things that are important when coming up with a balanced list. Right now, people are already balancing all those metrics into their lists (instead of exclusively using the suggested P1P1 metric) so we might as well open the voting up so that everybody is voting the same way.

I incorrectly used the term "favorite" earlier, and that's not right, and not really what I'm suggesting. I want voters to be able to vote for any cards they feel are the "best" cube cards for that respective section, with all the factors that go into evaluating them playing a role (not just the P1P1 metric).

Great discussion here, I feel like we're really getting somewhere.

Just for fun, I went back and looked at the opening posts of the original Power Rankings discussion thread, and it looks like this debate is not really new at all. However, it's been exacerbated by the fact that there used to be other projects like the cube comparison project evaluating the importance of cards for inclusion in cube, but since that project has fallen by the wayside but the Power Rankings have been resurrected the Power Rankings are currently the only game in town in terms of evaluating cube cards as a community.

My suggestion would be "best" cards ...and letting the voter balance all the metrics they can apply to come up with the list. It incorporates everything that makes a cube card good; P1P1 value, synergy, intrinsic powerlevel, MD%, cube importance ...all the things that are important when coming up with a balanced list.

One thing I'm not clear on are what kinds of cards you might consider a "best" card that is not also a strong candidate for a P1P1 pick. Could you clarify this with some examples?

There is probably a compromise, like "Top Cards", "Most Powerful Cards", something like that which doesn't imply P1P1 but also doesn't imply choices due to personal preference and not considering power level.

How about "most powerful cards in a cube environment"? Power comes in many forms, efficiency, effectiveness at development, card advantage, versatility, tempo advantage, how quickly it ends a game, ease of casting, viability as a build-around, quality as a late game topdeck, etc. A lot of this coincides with P1P1 value, but it has the potential to be more inclusive. I'm open to suggestions for a concise description of powerful in a cube environment that can give us a clear standard for what we're voting on here.

Quote from Spike Rogue »

One thing I'm not clear on are what kinds of cards you might consider a "best" card that is not also a strong candidate for a P1P1 pick. Could you clarify this with some examples?

Oblivion Ring makes the top 20 every year. Because it's a great cube card. It's flexible, and it has a really high maindeck percentage in white decks. But if I'm taking an Oblivion Ring P1P1, it's because I'm looking at the single worst cube pack imaginable.

Generic goodstuff picks make terrible P1P1 choices. The powerlevel isn't nearly good enough to justify that early of a pick, there's no real synergy to be extracted, and it's not the centerpiece of a deck where you can go on to make it the most powerful card in your deck. Flexibility is important, but it's important for your mid-pick cards. High maindeck percentage is not a metric that determines good P1P1 cards. In fact, you can argue exactly the opposite. "Safe" picks often have high maindeck percentages. They make a lot of final 40s, and they're flexible. But they aren't broken in the right deck. Those are the cards that have relatively low MD% stats; things like Wildfire and Oath and Tezzeret and Living Death. Cards that can't just be tossed into any deck of their color, but can be completely busted in decks designed to abuse them. Those are the more important qualities of good P1P1 cards ...they pass the "take and break" test.

Replacement level effects should be the thing that sets the bar. Can I take something else later on that can do this card's job (even if it's slightly worse at it)? If the answer is yes, it probably doesn't need to be taken P1P1. Take cards that are either A) so broken that the ability to build around alternative picks still won't increase their powerlevel enough to compete with the card your taking, or B) take a card you can "take and break" ...a card that doesn't have a particularly high intrinsic powerlevel, but when you can sculpt a strategy around it, it winds up competing for the title of best card in your deck. If a card doesn't do one of those two things for me, it's safe to pass.

Going back over the lists over the years, we've done a solid job of identifying the "best" cards from he given sections, but we've all done (myself included) a relatively poor job of identifying a group of cards that should be taken P1P1. Our results will be similar to past results if we change the metric to "best". But if we keep it as a P1P1 metric, I know my lists will look very different than they have in the past (and rightfully so).

Well, it is called the Power rankings for a reason, the metric should be "the strongest/most powerful cards" or something that directly relates to that (like P1P1). "Best" is too subjective IMO.

But strongest under what context? Most powerful under what context? P1P1 is only one metric for determining which cards are the "best". "Best" may be too subjective, but P1P1 is too far the opposite way. We need something that encompasses all the attributes that make a card the "best" card to include in a given color/section. I don't think the lists will provide the best data they can if we limit voters to a single metric (and they actually follow it).