Mana Short: A study in limited resource management.
Introduction
It’s been a long time between major articles for me, largely in part because I’ve been waiting to be able to discuss a topic that can be really beneficial to the cube community as a whole. Over the past year, I’ve been tracking discussions that I’ve had with other cube managers regarding how to properly sculpt a mana base that’s appropriate for the kinds of decks the cube tends to create. What I’ve found is that the cube community tends to criminally undervalue the importance of mana fixing, and a good portion of the evaluation is probably based on a misunderstanding of the real requirements for casting spells. I had never spent the time to crunch the numbers and find out how demanding the spells the cube plays can be on their respective mana bases, and I learned a lot from this study myself. Information I wish I could unlearn sometimes, as the numbers turned out to be pretty ruthless and unforgiving.
High level tournament players already understand the numbers this article will present to you. Especially players that focus a lot of their professional development on limited. But the cube is largely a casual format, and studies in resource management aren’t a big part of a casual player’s focus. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to win games when we sit down to draft the cube. There’s no single aspect of Magic that correlates with your win/loss ratio more than your mana (particularly in casual play). Mana screw and mana flood lead to a ton of losses on their own; so it’s best not to compound those issues with being unable to reliably cast your spells. But even for players that are familiar with the basic mana requirements for traditional limited face new challenges when drafting cube. Why? Because the cube is jammed with color-demanding spells that present a whole new set of challenges to properly cast. Wizards creates (or tries to create, at least) limited environments where players will be able to cast their spells. The common slots aren’t typically jammed with double-color 2, 3 and 4-drops, and the average 2-color deck in draft and sealed deck can survive with the mana base you can sculpt with your free basics. The cube isn’t as forgiving. You need to resolve powerful spells to compete, and often enough, those spells require a stronger dedication to its respective color.
This article will hopefully help people identify color-demand and mana source issues, as well as providing some options to help mitigate the issue during the drafting and deck construction process. The first thing to do is to determine how comfortable you are with the greed inherent in the resource department. Then use that information to determine the minimum required sources, and how that information can influence your drafting and deck-building processes to put a deck together that can reliably cast its spells. Without further ado, I’ll start giving you the information that my study unveiled.
Part I: “Do I feel lucky?...”
Typically speaking, cube drafters can be divided into two categories in terms of how comfortable they are with the spells they opt to play. Conservative players (like myself) try to build my decks with consistency in mind. I want to be able to cast all my spells. I want to be able to cast all my spells on curve. I want to have flexible and reliable cards that will give me the highest average performance. Other players are more comfortable being as greedy as possible. Their primary concerns are playing the most powerful spells possible. They’d rather have a lower percentage chance of casting the spell on curve if the result when it happens has a greater impact on the game. For the purposes of this article, “Conservative” players will want to include cards in their final 40 that they’ll be able to cast in roughly 75% of the cases where the option to do so presents itself. Whereas “Greedy” players are looking to do so with anything more than 50% of the time. So the term “conservative value” essentially equate to ≥75%, and the “greedy values” are >50%. Keep that in mind when the numbers come up later on in the article.
There are definitely cases where both can apply in the same deck. Cards that are critical to the deck’s success can have their mana requirements evaluated based on conservative values, and high-impact “splash” cards you might be more willing to assign a greedy casting value to. Only you can determine how comfortable you are with each type of spell, and it will vary from player to player. For example, I might use a conservative value when determining how many sources I need to play my Inquisition of Kozilek, because it’s a spell I want to play immediately once it’s available. Whereas a card like Balance might be able to wait for proper timing, and has such an incredible impact on the game that I’m willing to build greedily just to have the spell available. Additionally, the numbers can also be warped based on redundancy inside your deck. Casting a Soltari Priest on curve is critical to your deck if you have the bare minimum number of 2-drops available to you at your disposal. But if it’s the only mana-demanding 2-drop in your deck, and you have a ton of other more easily castable options available to you, it might be okay to be slightly more greedy with your white sources. It will change from deck to deck, based on redundancy and how critical a particular spell is to the success of your game plan.
Before we talk about determining how many sources of each color are required, have you ever calculated how difficult it might be to simply play a land each turn? Take a look at this table and see how many sources your deck might need:
As you can see, if resolving that 4-drop is critical to the success of your deck, is running a 17 land mana base really the best way to go? Are you okay with being unable to play that 4-drop on turn 4 almost 30% of the time? How many other 3cc options are in your deck? Are the 4-drops in your final 40 critical to the game plan you’ve established? Do you have any non-land mana sources that you can use to raise those numbers on the back end of your curve? All of those questions need to be evaluated when you’re determining how many total lands you’re adding into your deck.
Note: The above chart doesn't reference the ability to properly curve, or even how many sources are required to cast a spell on a given turn. It simply looks at what your percentages are of playing a land every turn given the number of sources included in the deck.
One more quick thing before I move onto the color-demand numbers: Non-land mana sources. As a general rule of thumb, non-land mana sources are less reliable than your land base. For me, I count each two non-land sources as one true “source” when calculating demand. If my demand requires 18 sources because my 4-drops are critical to my success, I’d be comfortable with 17 lands and two mana rocks, but not 17 lands and one mana rock. Why? Because there’s a fundamental risk of losing those sources to removal, counter-magic and other forms of mitigation from your opponent. So be weary of overconfidence and/or an over-reliance on your non-land mana sources when determining overall mana source demand or color-source demand. That Coldsteel Heart can be a great source of the second color for your 4-drop, until your opponent’s Manic Vandal crushes it and you’re left with an uncastable spell that was critical to your survival. An 18th or even 19th overall mana source (matching the color of the color-demanding spell) can be the difference between winning and losing that game.
Part II: “Never tell me the odds.”
This section will cover the mana source requirements for any given spell you might want to cast. Reminder: the green values indicate the conservative values. That’s a ≥75% chance of having that number of sources on a given turn. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be able to cast the spell (see the total mana source chart above) but simply have the minimum required sources of that color to cast it, assuming you have enough overall mana sources available to do so. The red values are the greedy numbers; a >50% chance of having the number of sources of the respective color to cast it if you have enough total sources of mana available (and as the chart indicated above, that can be a BIG if). Also a reminder that these stats assume you’re on the play. They can taper down by a source (or sometimes two) if you want to assume you’ll be on the draw, but that doesn’t seem like a fair way to evaluate the requirements. If I can’t reliably cast my spells on the play, what’s the benefit of being on the play to begin with? These numbers assume the most demanding of the predictable situations you might find yourself in.
One Source Values
TO
These will be the easiest of all your spells to cast. But as you can see, the values for the conservative numbers are still higher than I wanted to see. Typically speaking, the 1- and 2-drops are paramount to the success of your deck, because a proper curve is really important. Aggressive decks in particular can ill-afford to fail to cast their 1-drops. So if you’re running a 2-color aggro deck that contains 1cc cards of both colors, you need a minimum of an 8/8 split to reliably cast any given 1-drop in your deck. Sucks, doesn’t it? Sorry to say, but it doesn’t get any easier from here.
How do I use this information?
There are three things you need in order to cast a spell. 1) You need the spell in your hand. 2) You need enough sources of colored mana to meet the colored mana cost requirements. 3) You need enough total sources of mana to meet the converted mana cost requirements. The numbers in these charts cover the first two requirements ONLY.
Lets say that I have a Hymn that I want to include in my deck, and I want to make sure I have enough sources of black to cast it. First, determine on what turn you're willing to wait to cast the spell on (this will vary from spell to spell) and then consult the chart for the Two Source Values (because it requires two sources of black). If it's a spell that needs to be played on turn 2 in order to be valuable enough for inclusion, the number will be quite high. But Hymn is a spell that's powerful enough (even when cast in the mid/late-game) that I'd be willing to cast it somewhere around turn 4 or turn 5 and still be happy with the results. So the color cost requirements drop, because it's a easier to meet your color requirements the deeper into the game you get. If the card were a Sinkhole instead, I might not be as willing to cast it in the later stages of the game. So I'd check the values required for reliably casting it on turn 2 (or maybe turn 3) instead.
So again, the data isn't for determining your total number of mana sources required to play a 5cc card on turn 5, but simply calculating your color demand for playing a card with that number of mana sources in it by a given turn. It's up to you to determine how many total mana sources you'll want to include.
Two Source Values
TO
These are the most important stats, and they were the eye-opening values that really made me re-evaluate my mana demand in the cube. You’re reading them right. That same Soltari Priest we were discussing earlier requires 13 sources of white in your deck in order to conservatively cast it on turn 2. 3cc cards with a double mana requirement need 12 sources to have 2 sources by turn 3. So lets look at this objectively, and be honest now. How many decks have you played that contained a card like Soltari Priest and Vendilion Clique simultaneously? Did you realize that it requires a 13/12 mana base to reliably cast them? That’s not casting both, mind you, just one or the other. Curving from an XX 2-drop INTO a 1XX 3-drop of a different color is exponentially more difficult. A 13/12 split just gives you the ability to cast one of the two on curve if you draw it. But even with this information available, and avoiding decks with that demand, look at the requirements for a 1XX 3-drop and a 2XX 4-drop in the same deck. We create decks like that all the time. That requires a 12/10 split. How many of us are honestly creating decks with that good a mana base? Want your Azorius tempo decks to contain a Brimaz, King of Oreskos and a Sower of Temptation and be able to reliably cast either of them if they’re drawn? I do too. But I’ll be hard-pressed to create that kind of mana base in the vast majority of my drafts.
Three Source Values
TO
Here’s where it just gets silly. If playing that Geralf's Messenger on turn 3 is critical to the success of your deck, you better be playing mono-black, and have zero colorless lands in there. Or what about Cryptic Command? If your deck isn’t heavily rooted in blue, the chance of reliably playing it on turn 4 shrinks significantly. Keep that in mind when you grab a Command for your U/X deck and want to ...you know... play it.
Four Source Values
TO
Folks, this is why we don’t play cards with quad mana sources. That Phyrexian Obliterator requires more sources of black to play on curve than you have total mana sources in your deck. And Cloudthresher can really only be played in mono-green. Pass.
So what does this all mean?
Part III: “My God man, I’m a cube drafter, not a statistician!”
Those numbers mean one thing; I need to pay more attention to my mana bases when I’m drafting cube. This isn’t a format won on the back of Pillarfield Oxen, I need to be able to play those Elspeth, Knight-Errants instead. So what can I do to ensure I can? What steps can I take to mitigate those mana-demanding cards?
During the deck construction process, evaluate how critical a given mana-demanding spell is for the success of the deck. If you can elect to pass on a double-color card in your secondary color, you’ll probably have to do it. But how do you make that determination? If you’re staring down at a True-Name Nemesis and a Mirran Crusader, and your 4cc section contains an Elspeth, Knight-Errant and a Fact or Fiction, you might have to elect to leave the Nemesis out of your final 40. Why? Because you can keep only one of your two colors as the demanding color. If you can meet the requirements for the Crusader, you can meet the requirements for your Elspeth. But if you elect to run enough sources to cast the Nemesis on curve, you might be deficient for two spells in your other color now. A lot of the decision-making process will be governed by how much mana-fixing you drafted, and how important your color-demanding spells are to your deck. All of us want to automatically slot the most powerful spells in wherever available, but doing so will often lead to you having spells in your final 40 you can’t reliably cast. Nothing costs you a game more often than mana issues will. So avoid them wherever possible. Maybe I need to be running 1-2 more lands in each deck than I’ve been doing historically in order to curb the mana requirements. Something to keep in mind.
The easiest place to mitigate these issues is during the draft process. Once you’ve taken some color-demanding cards, use that as a benchmark to determine what your “primary” color will be. This will be the color that needs ~12 sources to play the spells you’ve elected to draft. Don’t take the Vendilion Clique from the pack (even for your R/U tempo/aggro deck!) if you already have an Ash Zealot, Sulfuric Vortex and Koth of the Hammer you know you’re gonna want to play. Because you won’t be able to cast the damn thing, even with an above-average mana base. And the #1 thing to take away from this article? Prioritize your mana fixing. There are very few cards in the cube that I’d be willing to pass an on-color fixing land to take. No card is worth taking if it means that the end result will be having multiple cards in your deck that you’re now incapable of reliably casting.
I think cube drafters are too often invested in what they consider to be “free splashes”. It’s really rare for a splash to ever be truly free. Even looking at the least color demanding card you can possibly splash (lets say that you wanted to splash a Meloku the Clouded Mirror and are willing to wait until turn 6 to cast it) you’re still looking at a minimum of 4 sources of your now 3rd color in order to do so. You might be able to do that with proper fixing if neither of your two primary colors have any color-demanding cards in them, but that’s going to be really unlikely. And even if you can, and you meet the minimum qualifications for both your other colors to be conservative, there’s still room for improvement on the front of your two primary colors. Remember that even the conservative numbers are ~75% chance of being able to play them. That means that a quarter of the time, you still won’t be able to cast that Vendilion Clique on turn 3 even if you have 12 sources of blue in your deck! So most of the time, adding a 13th or 14th source of blue will be better for your deck than adding in the additional sources to reach the minimum requirements for your splash card. Especially if your primary color has more than one double-color costed card in it, or if you’re trying to run double-color cards in your secondary color at the same time (which we often do).
In that same vein, lands that tap for colorless mana have a significant impact on your mana base. They’re not “free” inclusions at all. Lets say that you build a “good” mana base. You draft 4 mana-fixing lands, and you’re playing a typical 17-land deck. That means that if you split your basic lands in a 9/4 way, you’ll have 13 sources of your primary color (so you can cast your Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary) and 8 sources of your secondary color (so you can play 1-drops of that color, like a Thoughtseize, for example). That leaves zero room for colorless lands, and zero room for double-color cards in your second color. In a deck with 4 mana-fixing lands! Lets say that you are really careful when you’re drafting. Your most mana-demanding card in your primary color is a 1XX 3-drop, and your secondary color has no double-color cards, and no 1-drops. You’ll need to build a 12/7 split to include something like Phyrexian Arena and Looter il-Kor in the same deck. With 3 mana-fixing lands, you can run a 9/4 split on basics and be able to do it perfectly. But again, that’s with no colorless lands, and a very conservative drafting/deck-building process with a really low color demand. The eye-opener for me was the stats on running a 1XX 3-drop and a 2XX 4-drop in the same deck (who doesn’t want to curve from a Pillage into a Braids, Cabal Minion?). That requires a 12/10 split. With 5 mana-fixing lands, I can do it with a 7/5 basic split. Five fixing lands. FIVE. Anything less, and I’ll be deficient in one of the two colors. No colorless lands. No splash color. No double-color 2-drops. Ouch.
The last thing I’ll touch on is how this can potentially impact cube design. Am I running enough mana-fixing lands to have each player reliably acquire 3-4 on-color fixers in every draft? Are there too many color-demanding 2-4cc cards in the list? Are there too many multicolor cards that may be traps for players trying to “splash” them? Are there too many lands that tap for colorless mana? Am I running enough non-land cards that can fix my mana to help mitigate the source requirements? I’m in the process of answering some of those questions right now. And most of those questions I fail to answer positively, if I’m being completely honest with myself.
In conclusion...
I hope this information is valuable to you other cube managers and cube drafters. I have observed a pattern of dismissive attitudes when it comes to mana requirements throughout the entire cube community. On this site, on other sites, and even from the professional Magic players that dabble in cube drafts. I’ve always prioritized mana fixing, but still found myself deficient on source requirements in the majority of my drafts. Even with other players undervaluing their importance. And that was before crunching the numbers. The study was eye-opening for me, and the impact it has on everything from cube design to the drafting and deck-building procedures will be significant for me and my playgroup.
Please feel free to provide feedback and commentary! Thanks for reading. Cheers, and happy cubing.
..........
Afterward–Notes on the math.
Interested in the math behind the charts? Here's a brief summary of how they were calculated:
For the chart regarding playing lands on a given turn: the Population Size was set to 40, the Successes In Population was set to X (whatever the values were for that given source number), the Sample Size was set to 7 for turn 1 + 1 for each additional turn afterward, and the Successes In Sample were set to the target value for the turn (the number would be 3 for turn 3, as an example). The Probability demonstrated was the ≥ value, because it simply needed to establish drawing at least X lands by a given turn, not exactly X by a given turn, so the results checked were Cumulative Probability: P(X > x).
Now, for the charts regarding having X colored sources by a given turn: the Population Size was set to 39 (to accommodate for the remaining pool after the card you're attempting to cast had been drawn), the Successes In Population was set to X (the number of sources of that color in the remaining 39 cards), the Sample Size was set to 6 for turn 1 + 1 for each additional turn afterward (because one of the drawn cards is the spell you've drawn that you want to play), and the Successes In Sample were set to the minimum number of colored sources needed to cast the spell. The Probability demonstrated was the ≥ value, because it simply needed to establish drawing at least X sources of a given color by a given turn, not exactly X by a given turn, so the results checked were Cumulative Probability: P(X > x).
Both charts were generated with the assumption that the player is on the play.
Great article that every cube manager should read! The numbers are astonishing. I had previously calculated out the curving-out odds but I had never done the next step of calculating the numbers for how many colored sources are necessary.
This reminds me of a card purge in the peasant cube community about half a year ago. A bunch of us cut most if not all the double-colored two-drops from our cubes and instantly got better results out of everyone's decks, particularly aggro (because there's less untapped fixing for aggro). Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here for all cubes that cards with multiple colored symbols are a significantly higher drawback than most people believe, doubly so when those cards must be played on curve to have effectiveness.
It also highlights our discussions about splashing and how many players are too eager to splash another color. Again, there is a very real cost to doing so.
Thanks for the comment! Glad it was helpful, and I hope others get some value from it too. I know I learned quite a bit when I started crunching numbers.
Also need to throw a shout-out to Eidolon, who I had to PM several times when calculating this stuff so he could help me wrap my poor pea-brain around some of the statistics, and how to properly use the hypergrometric calculator.
Thanks for that! Great read!! Shocking numbers!!! My cube was already very "light" on mana demands (high number of colourless cards and a bias against colour demanding cards), but the fixing can definitely be increased. Cryptic Command was my only non-green XXX spell left in my cube, and rotated already in and out a few times and will now definitely rotate out with my next update.
This article is brilliant. Even though I've heard some of the numbers before for limited and the probabilities for curving out, I've never got it presented to me when it comes to cubing, especially not from a designer perspective. Things like these are so far from obvious.
Glad it was valuable!
If it helped to inspire any changes, or you use the information to change the draft/deck-building process at all, PLEASE comment back here and let me know. I'm interested in how others will use the information, and it it'll ultimately help to make decks more consistent.
Thanks for that! Great read!! Shocking numbers!!! My cube was already very "light" on mana demands (high number of colourless cards and a bias against colour demanding cards), but the fixing can definitely be increased. Cryptic Command was my only XXX spell left in my cube, and rotated already in and out a few times and will now definitely rotate out with my next update.
It wasn't necessarily written to start a witch hunt for all the mana-demanding cards in the cube, but just to be aware of the difficulties they can present to the drafters. Command is a really powerful spell; probably good enough that it's worth keeping around for any decks that are capable of casting it. It's one of those cards that's worth calculating your sources based on the "greedy" values for, IMHO.
Fascinating analysis. I had previously used 10 sources as a rule of thumb guide in limited if I wanted to have reliable access to a colour. Looks like I underestimated.
...particularly aggro (because there's less untapped fixing for aggro). Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here for all cubes that cards with multiple colored symbols are a significantly higher drawback than most people believe, doubly so when those cards must be played on curve to have effectiveness.
You allude to it in the article but Reason nails a key issue here: these difficulties are much more significant for aggro decks. I think it is why I like the pain lands: control is often reluctant to pick them leaving aggro with more fixing.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Perhaps the only thing missing is Gold card analysis. e.g. what does my mana-base need to look like to reliably cast Putrid Leech on turn 2 etc.
True, the main reason why it was excluded was for simplicity's sake. Keeping the focus on mana-demanding cards and the separation between primary and secondary colors was really the big thing I was trying to tackle.
Quote from majikian »
I think that change was probably the single best thing that's happened to my cube.
Ya, C/Ubes have a really hard time with the aggressive 2-color 2-drops because so much of the playable fixing in that format ETBT. They really need to print the painlands as uncommons one of these days.
My cube's undergoing a bit of an overhaul at the moment but I think I'm probably going to end up with Strangleroot Geist as my only aggressive (non gold) double-color 2-drop (because it's still totally solid off-curve anyway). I'm going to take a long hard look at my double-color 3-drops too, which is something I've been intending to do for a while but this article has been a timely reminder of how important that can be.
I'm glad it's helpful to you. Geist is good even away from T2, which is another important factor that can change how many sources you truly "require" in order to want to play it. There are several cards that can do this in the cube.
Great article, man. Those numbers are certainly surprising. You already convinced me in an earlier post a couple of months ago to value fixing much higher (which has certainly paid off in my drafts!), but I don't understand the folks here who are already giving the stink eye to double and triple color cards. Pox and Necropotence are two of my favorite cards in the game and subsequently have ended up being two of my favorite cards in the cube. I don't think you should be afraid of cards with two or three colored symbols in their cost. You should just be aware of them while you're drafting. If you're drafting Boros aggro and you already have Knight of Meadograin along with Soltari Priest and Monk, then maybe you should take something else over the Ash Zealot. You should also be valuing those Boros lands very very highly because you want to be able to go Jackal Pup into Soltari fairly reliably. For me it's not a matter of cutting CC, 1CC, or CCC cards from my cube for being tough on my mana base. It's just a matter of paying attention to my draft and valuing fixing appropriately based on the cards I'm drafting.
You should just be aware of them while you're drafting.
My feelings exactly, man. It's not about axing a ton of good cards from the cube. It's about drafting and deckbuilding with this information in mind so you can build your manabase and/or exclude cards from your final 40 that are too color demanding. This article was simply about awareness.
On one hand, I'm a bit surprised at your surprise. A lot of your math boils down to the following rule of thumb: "Try to avoid playing double-colored mana spells costing 4 or less in more than one color". I think a lot of Limited players, consciously or intuitively, follow such a rule of thumb. Of course, it's still very useful to see the math behind this rule.
On the other hand, I do think you're a bit too pessimistic, or rather, you're having unrealistic expectations of what a "functioning manabase" is, i.e. demanding that a spell can be cast "on curve" more than 75% of the time is a very high bar to set.
I see two (closely related) reasons for this:
(i) unless I'm misunderstanding your calculations, your percentages answer the question "Given a certain manabase and given I have card A in hand, what's the probability that I'll have the correct mana available on the turn number equal to A's CMC?" This question doesn't take into account the fact that if you fail to have the right mana on curve, you'll sometimes/often have other spells to cast (in your other color(s) or with easier mana requirements), mitigating the negative consequences of not casting A on curve. In other words, you don't necessarily lose the game or fall significantly behind in every case you fail to cast one specific card in your hand on curve;
(ii) many cards in Cube don't lose much efficiency when cast "off curve", or are even meant not to be cast on curve. You mention the best example, Balance, in your article, but the same goes for most spells, and even most creatures. For example, True-Name Nemesis is a relevant threat and/or defensive card at all stages of the game. Sure, your control deck can lose a game because you didn't have the 2nd blue mana to drop it on T3 against an aggro opponent, but often, you'll draw into the required mana later on and be fine (in the sense that your card will still have a relevant effect on the game).
That said, your analysis is absolutely very relevant for two specific sets of cards, cheap aggressive creatures and answers to cheap aggressive creatures. In an aggro deck, not curving out due to mana issues will often mean putting insufficient pressure on your opponent to win the game before his more powerful expensive cards take over. Conversely, not being able to cast your Wrath of God on T4 against a curved-out aggro deck will probably lose you the game on the spot. That is the nature of a match-up where the fundamental strategy of one deck is to cast all its spells as soon as possible and have the game end with the opponent having unused/unusable resources left over.
The same applies more or less to any other early threat that requires an immediate answer, for example a Tinker-ed robot or a T1/T2 Planeswalker via broken artifact mana.
Now, if you craft a Cube environment where the early turns are extremely important (because of aggro decks and/or early broken plays being common), then many of your games will end or be essentially decided on T4/T5, and the problem you identify will become more pronounced, so mana fixing will become more important. Conversely, if the "fundamental turn" of your Cube is increased by one, you get one more draw step to "fix" your mana, and the tables in the article show that this makes a significant difference.
I think that may be a useful additional point to take away from the analysis: the faster your Cube environment, the more mana fixing you need.
More in general, mana issues have always been a part of Magic, and many games are won and lost because of them. The question is: how big of a problem do you think this is and how far do you want to go to fix it? Overloading on mana fixing in the Cube itself may be a solution, but it leads to its own problems (one of which is "boring packs" with nothing but mana fixing). If you want to eliminate most mana problems, you could do something extreme like letting each player, after the draft, add up to four of any one dual land to his pool. That way, you can count on a reliable 2-color manabase without having to add a bunch of mana fixing to your Cube in the place of more exciting cards (which are why we play Cube, after all, right?).
To finish, some minor nitpicks with, or easy improvements to, the article:
In the first table, you say you need 18 mana sources to have a 77% chance of having 4 on T4; in the Phyrexian Obliterator example, you say you need 19 Swamps to have a >75% chance to cast it on T4. That can't both be correct.
Or what about Cryptic Command? If your deck isn’t almost entirely mono-blue, your chances of playing it on turn 4 are close to nil.
Unnecessary hyperbole. Your own table shows that if you have 12 Blue sources (that's not "almost entirely mono-blue") you still have a better than 50% shot at casting it on T4 (that's not "close to nil").
Poorly chosen example, since you almost never play Snapcaster Mage on T2. Point still stands, obviously.
Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way; I think your article contains a lot of very insightful ideas on Cube design, drafting, and deck building, so it certainly is recommended reading!
On one hand, I'm a bit surprised at your surprise. A lot of your math boils down to the following rule of thumb: "Try to avoid playing double-colored mana spells costing 4 or less in more than one color". I think a lot of Limited players, consciously or intuitively, follow such a rule of thumb. Of course, it's still very useful to see the math behind this rule.
Very true. But as I mentioned in the article, the cube is largely a casual format, and not all casual players have calculated their mana source requirements before. Additionally, the cube has far more traps set up for players to fall into when it comes to mana issues than regular limited does, based on how Wizards constructs their sets vs what you see in the cube. Lastly, I've always been aware of running double-color 2-drops are a no-no to run with double color cards of your second color. But I wasn't fully aware of the math behind running say a Silverblade Paladin and a Koth of the Hammer in the same deck, and how heavy the requirements are to pair those two up.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
On the other hand, I do think you're a bit too pessimistic, or rather, you're having unrealistic expectations of what a "functioning manabase" is, i.e. demanding that a spell can be cast "on curve" more than 75% of the time is a very high bar to set.
I don't think it should be. Having colored sources available to cast my spells on curve 75% of the time shouldn't be hard to do. But it is. And not only that, but it doesn't compound with overall source requirements that can lessen the reliability even more. Sometimes those numbers aren't as important because of the redundancy you might have in a given role or given CMC, but other times, curving your cards is paramount. And 75% shouldn't be too much to ask.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
I see two (closely related) reasons for this:
(i) unless I'm misunderstanding your calculations, your percentages answer the question "Given a certain manabase and given I have card A in hand, what's the probability that I'll have the correct mana available on the turn number equal to A's CMC?" This question doesn't take into account the fact that if you fail to have the right mana on curve, you'll sometimes/often have other spells to cast (in your other color(s) or with easier mana requirements), mitigating the negative consequences of not casting A on curve. In other words, you don't necessarily lose the game or fall significantly behind in every case you fail to cast one specific card in your hand on curve;
2 things here. 1) I covered that in the article. Redundancy can sometimes allow you to be more greedy with your mana. But 2) it depends greatly on the spell being cast. It's all well and good that you have another 4-drop in your hand that may be easier to cast than Wrath of God, but that doesn't matter at all if the spell you need to play is the one with the more mana-demanding cost. Which given the effect that a lot of the mana demanding cards have, can often be the case.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
(ii) many cards in Cube don't lose much efficiency when cast "off curve", or are even meant not to be cast on curve. You mention the best example, Balance, in your article, but the same goes for most spells, and even most creatures. For example, True-Name Nemesis is a relevant threat and/or defensive card at all stages of the game. Sure, your control deck can lose a game because you didn't have the 2nd blue mana to drop it on T3 against an aggro opponent, but often, you'll draw into the required mana later on and be fine (in the sense that your card will still have a relevant effect on the game).
This is also true, and it was covered in the article. Off-curve impact and redundancy can both influence your mana demands. Most every card will still be relevant later on. But the impact it can have on curve vs the impact that it can have later on can be night/day, and I think it's still important to give yourself options. You limit what spells you can play in what places in the curve if you don't meet your mana demands.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
That said, your analysis is absolutely very relevant for two specific sets of cards, cheap aggressive creatures and answers to cheap aggressive creatures. In an aggro deck, not curving out due to mana issues will often mean putting insufficient pressure on your opponent to win the game before his more powerful expensive cards take over. Conversely, not being able to cast your Wrath of God on T4 against a curved-out aggro deck will probably lose you the game on the spot. That is the nature of a match-up where the fundamental strategy of one deck is to cast all its spells as soon as possible and have the game end with the opponent having unused/unusable resources left over.
The same applies more or less to any other early threat that requires an immediate answer, for example a Tinker-ed robot or a T1/T2 Planeswalker via broken artifact mana.
Now, if you craft a Cube environment where the early turns are extremely important (because of aggro decks and/or early broken plays being common), then many of your games will end or be essentially decided on T4/T5, and the problem you identify will become more pronounced, so mana fixing will become more important. Conversely, if the "fundamental turn" of your Cube is increased by one, you get one more draw step to "fix" your mana, and the tables in the article show that this makes a significant difference.
This analysis is spot-on. Thank you for identifying and clarifying those points.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
I think that may be a useful additional point to take away from the analysis: the faster your Cube environment, the more mana fixing you need.
This is absolutely true as well. It becomes more important on both sides of the battlefield the faster the game gets.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
More in general, mana issues have always been a part of Magic, and many games are won and lost because of them. The question is: how big of a problem do you think this is and how far do you want to go to fix it? Overloading on mana fixing in the Cube itself may be a solution, but it leads to its own problems (one of which is "boring packs" with nothing but mana fixing). If you want to eliminate most mana problems, you could do something extreme like letting each player, after the draft, add up to four of any one dual land to his pool. That way, you can count on a reliable 2-color manabase without having to add a bunch of mana fixing to your Cube in the place of more exciting cards (which are why we play Cube, after all, right?).
I think the approach needs to be a combination of the two. First, ensure that you have enough mana that players can expect to get the minimum amount they need on average to construct a mana base that will work for the average cube deck. Once that's accomplished, it's about educating the players on how the drafting and deckbuilding process can influence the consistency of their decks. And of course, having players properly prioritize manabases.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
In the first table, you say you need 18 mana sources to have a 77% chance of having 4 on T4; in the Phyrexian Obliterator example, you say you need 19 Swamps to have a >75% chance to cast it on T4. That can't both be correct.
Actually, it is correct. The table for overall mana sources isn't assuming you have a spell you need to cast on each turn. That table doesn't give you the information about casting a 4cc card on T4, but simply having 4 lands on T4. Whereas in the Obliterator example, it assumes one of your drawn cards is the Obliterator that requires the BBBB, so the values come from seeing 9 other cards from the remaining pool of 39 cards, vs simply having 4 lands, which looks for 4 success out of the 10 cards you've seen of the 40-card pool.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
Unnecessary hyperbole. Your own table shows that if you have 12 Blue sources (that's not "almost entirely mono-blue") you still have a better than 50% shot at casting it on T4 (that's not "close to nil").
Correct. It's not close to nil, only difficult to cast. Having a spell in my deck that half the time I'm unable to cast on curve isn't what I'd consider to be reliable. But you're still right. A blue heavy deck still has a chance of playing it on T4, and it gets more reasonable from there as the game goes on. I should correct the language used to describe that scenario.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
Poorly chosen example, since you almost never play Snapcaster Mage on T2. Point still stands, obviously.
Ya, you need a Mox and a 1cc spell to do that... I should've chosen Looter il-Kor or something. I'll change that too. Thanks for pointing that out.
Quote from Falcone1983 »
Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way; I think your article contains a lot of very insightful ideas on Cube design, drafting, and deck building, so it certainly is recommended reading!
I absolutely don't take it the wrong way at all! I appreciate the feedback. Thanks again.
Thanks for writing this, I appreciated that you phrased it as the start of a conversation rather than reporting a conclusion.
The main things it made me think about:
1. Number of Lands
In your own cube list you are try to push fixing lands above 10%. This is a fine way to handle it but I found my group started to get grumpy at about the 10% mark, and seeing packs with 4+ fixing in it is not something they liked. Part of this was how they evaluated cards vs. your group and another was outllook. My groups sees cube as super-drafting not randomized constructed. In all other draft environments we have played (including dragonmaze) there was an upper limit on fixing. And at that level and in my cube we still see the cut land strategies that take all fixing and crazy powerful 5 color stuff.
I also think that having a huge amount of fixing decreases the power level of green. On the flip side cubes without fixing make green the best color. This is one way I am going to calibrate my land inclusion.
2. Drafting and Building
For cube we can get 45 playables every time often with 30+ being colorless or in our 2 colors. Compared to a normal limited environments, we have many picks to spare allowing us to take XX1 or XX2 cards in both colors and figuring out at that end what works. This finial decision process is what wins games in a fast high-level setting. Your article will have a big impact on me here.
3. Type of Lands
I think that some lands will be raised in my estimation. You pointed out how challenging the splash can be while maintaining a decent 2 color manabase. So lands that can splash in more directions are increased in value. The fetches of course, but there are others that are regularly dismissed by the group at large. The mirage fetches, terramorphic expanse, and evolving wilds can play a big roll getting that double mana or the splash on turns 2-4. The vivid lands can do this as well. Unfortunately this leaves only the pain lands as a place to look for untapped lands. Another often disregarded land type is the triple lands. While not helping with the double cost they are a great option for those that want to support larger gold sections. Ancient Ziggarat is a bone I might throw my aggro decks to compensate for the lack of great fixing for aggro decks. Cavern of Souls is also one i have my eye on. With the rise of human tribal in my cube those cards seem like they might have a home. Reflecting pool also goes up in my estimation.
4. Gold Section
The reaction I see most many managers have is to go after gold cards. The most important thing is to make your group happy. Many groups like the author's just want their decks to run smooth as silk with tons of flexibility. Golds cards really aren't for them. There are more than enough mono colored powerful cards to completely remove this section. Other groups love the power level and evocative nature of the gold cards. Many of them are egendary, or planeswalkers, one-of-a-kind effects and seem irreplaceable. I fall in the middle. The point of the author is something that has caused my to halve my gold section. But this article actually made me not want to cut anymore. Why? It looks like XX2 and YY2 cards are very hard on a deck evenly split in two colors. Comparatively XY2 is going to be very easy in that same deck. I may not want Koth and Thrun in the same deck, but I want Huntmaster in, no matter if I am R/G, R/g, or r/G. As others have said the math would be interesting to see in detail but I think it would hold throughout the curve. Interestingly wizards also views XY2 as more difficult than XX2 or X3 and is more comfortable increasing the power level. So while a certain gold card only goes in 10% of decks this article tells us we should not assume that all colored cards go in 20% of decks. More likely double cost cards should only be going in X/y decks which is 10%ish.
5. Hybrids
I have started sliding these in my main colors which is very controversial, but I like to cheat a little on my gold section. What is interesting from this article is that something like Boros Reckoner is probably better for my boros deck(mana wise) than RR1 or WW1 cards because I will always be dropping it turn 3 (not assuming colorless lands). I have been and will continue to be on the lookout for more hybrids and ways to get them in cube.
6. Other Fixers
The analysis assumes just the lands for fixing with half a point credited to signets and such. I think there is a lot more too it than that and for me will be the biggest way this article impacts my cube. Each color has ways of dealing with this that need to be managed in addition to number of fixing lands in the cube.
Green: The most obvious. Card like birds of paradise are staples but there is a significant resistance to Sylvan Caryatid which I think should be a 360 staple. And for those 540 and above Utopia Tree an the like should be looked at. The Cultivate cards are obviously strong in this area. Mana elves allow GG1 and GG2 cards to be much easier than cards in other colors. I have had great success with Avacyn's Pilgrim and Noble Hieracrh and will be trying to find room for Elves of Deep Shadow and Deathrite Shaman. The enemy pairs are notoriously weak for lands and I actively encourage people to try Elves of Deep shadow instead of a subpar G/B land.
Blue: Card drawing and filtering. Why am I playing the Clique with double mana cards of other colors? I look at a heck of a lot more cards than the generic table above. Having recently acquired some new high power cards I have trimmed back on cantrips. Also I have added cards to go with Master of Waves. This article reminded me that I was being greedy and need to correct this.
Black: Black gets the occasional ritual or swamp fetcher but it mostly needs card drawing to pull into more fixing. With the heaviest color requirements I will continue to try to find ways to reward heavy black decks for thier dedication. I will also take a second look at unusal fixing like Crypt Ghast. Where black really shines is tutors, although not sexy, how many of us Demonic Tutor for a dual on turn 2 or 3 to fix the rest of our plays?
Red: Ut-Oh. The fastest, most aggro color in cube really doesn't have anything that can help it. I really wish wizards would print some better looters. But I think I just need to be upping the mountains in my deck. What I want is a a R1 2/2 haste looter once when it comes into play.
White: Not much better than red but it gets Land Tax like cards on occasion. The biggest advantage white has is the depth in it's aggro choices, allowing for the removal of WW cards.
7. Mono-Colored Decks
I really like drafting mono decks for the exact reason the author is here. I get to play all my cards! Now they are less sexy and very hard with a smaller table of drafters, I think putting rewards in for players who go that way is a good idea. Not only have they made a risky choice, but the data aboves says it could be a smart move many times. Additionally it has a side benefit of leaving more fixing in the pool for others. Not sure exactly what I mean by rewards, but I am already running Thassa and Porphorous. Other options like Crypt Ghast and Nythos, Shrine to Nix would excite my group.
8. Land Destruction
It strikes me that if fixing is so tenuous for players than disrupting that is something I want to be doing. In a general sense this makes me want to include a couple cards I removed because I didn't think the 'Land Destruction.dec' was coming together. Also Fulminator Mage is now one of my highest priority acquisition targets. And as we see increased fixing is important does it make other cards better(Blood Moon, Molten Rain, Spreading Seas, Kiora's Follower, Tutors).
9. XX and Aggro
The author posited that the forum is dismissive of fixing concerns but in the last year (I am new here) there has been a big house cleaning on XX cards, particularly in white. By removing those cards it has certainly helped aggro. Another thing besides cutting is making sure that I have enough redundancy. That way I can have opening hands with W,R,W1,R1,RR so that I can drop threats uninterrupted . Dropping the Ash Zelot on turn 3 or 4 is not ideal in the abstract but isn't a big deal if I have another quality 2 drop which came down in its place.
10. Cuts
The author is going after gold, and that is certainly fine for his group I am going to look at my XX cards again but more importantly my XX1 and XX2. These cards really need to be better than X2 and X3 cards. They also need to be cards that are designed to be in the primary color combination than in the secondary or splash. Changes will probably be subtle but I need to realize that many/most of the time these cards will not come down on curve. I also need to reexamine the purpose of heavy requirement cards. Geralf's Messenger stays for me as my group likes it as more of a combo/reach card, cheating it, reanimating and all forms of goofy. But for groups that are on black aggro, you better see a lot of Mono-B otherwise it is gone. Cards with a back up plans are great. My hearld of torment didn't come down on 3, but I get a second black at turn 5, no problem.
11. Colorless cards and Phrexian Mana
I just don't have the room for colorless lands that are not amazing. This math reinforces something I have felt for a while. If someone told me they didn't put the colorless manlands in their 360 I would understand. Scary right? These cards are either taking up spell slots or you have specific decks that can handle the colorless mana. For me they are frequently a good 18th land but I see many people playing 8/8/Mutavault decks and cringe.
Dear wizards, make more aggro artifact creatures. The flip side of the above argument is the increased value of cards that don't care what lands you have. Porcelain Legionnaire and Phyrexian Metamorph are great in aggro decks because they really fill holes well. I will be doing another sweep of unassuming completetly functional cheaper artifact creatures to include. Epocrocite is a card I can't recommend enough.
In conclusion (if you have read this far). The math is an important thing to keep in mind as a cube designer and player. The demands from the author's group bring it into high clarity but it all reinforces that fundamental cube concepts "What kind of experiences do you want players to have?" and "What challenges should they face?"
Thanks for writing this, I appreciated that you phrased it as the start of a conversation rather than reporting a conclusion.
You're most welcome. It was designed to be informative for everybody (myself included!) and not a lecture-style article. I enjoy reading articles written that way, so I tried to write my article that way.
Quote from dschumm »
The main things it made me think about:
1. Number of Lands
In your own cube list you are try to push fixing lands above 10%. This is a fine way to handle it but I found my group started to get grumpy at about the 10% mark, and seeing packs with 4+ fixing in it is not something they liked. Part of this was how they evaluated cards vs. your group and another was outllook. My groups sees cube as super-drafting not randomized constructed. In all other draft environments we have played (including dragonmaze) there was an upper limit on fixing. And at that level and in my cube we still see the cut land strategies that take all fixing and crazy powerful 5 color stuff.
I also think that having a huge amount of fixing decreases the power level of green. On the flip side cubes without fixing make green the best color. This is one way I am going to calibrate my land inclusion.
Keep in mind that my solution looked that way largely because I'm trying to mitigate issues I have with the 2-4 man formats, and not for full-table drafting. For groups that fill up their tables and draft the majority of the cube in each sitting, the drafting and deck-building help (as well as having a basic understanding of the statistical requirements) will be much better uses of the information. Cube design probably won't be impacted at all.
Quote from dschumm »
2. Drafting and Building
For cube we can get 45 playables every time often with 30+ being colorless or in our 2 colors. Compared to a normal limited environments, we have many picks to spare allowing us to take XX1 or XX2 cards in both colors and figuring out at that end what works. This finial decision process is what wins games in a fast high-level setting. Your article will have a big impact on me here.
Glad to hear it! I think the focus on the article lies more with this (understanding mana demand vs changing cube design to cater to it) than anything else.
Quote from dschumm »
3. Type of Lands
I think that some lands will be raised in my estimation. You pointed out how challenging the splash can be while maintaining a decent 2 color manabase. So lands that can splash in more directions are increased in value. The fetches of course, but there are others that are regularly dismissed by the group at large. The mirage fetches, terramorphic expanse, and evolving wilds can play a big roll getting that double mana or the splash on turns 2-4. The vivid lands can do this as well. Unfortunately this leaves only the pain lands as a place to look for untapped lands. Another often disregarded land type is the triple lands. While not helping with the double cost they are a great option for those that want to support larger gold sections. Ancient Ziggarat is a bone I might throw my aggro decks to compensate for the lack of great fixing for aggro decks. Cavern of Souls is also one i have my eye on. With the rise of human tribal in my cube those cards seem like they might have a home. Reflecting pool also goes up in my estimation.
As a side note I think Gemstone mine is creeping closer to a pick 1 in my mind. I also want to hear if people have tried Archeological Dig, Tengo Ice Bridge, Mirrodin's Core, or Lotus Vale.
5-color fixing is incredibly valuable stuff. I hope we get more in the future that are valuable to every decktype. I really wanted a poison-land from Scars block. And yes, Gemstone Mine is really good, IMHO.
Quote from dschumm »
4. Gold Section
The reaction I see most many managers have is to go after gold cards. The most important thing is to make your group happy. Many groups like the author's just want their decks to run smooth as silk with tons of flexibility. Golds cards really aren't for them. There are more than enough mono colored powerful cards to completely remove this section. Other groups love the power level and evocative nature of the gold cards. Many of them are egendary, or planeswalkers, one-of-a-kind effects and seem irreplaceable. I fall in the middle. The point of the author is something that has caused my to halve my gold section. But this article actually made me not want to cut anymore. Why? It looks like XX2 and YY2 cards are very hard on a deck evenly split in two colors. Comparatively XY2 is going to be very easy in that same deck. I may not want Koth and Thrun in the same deck, but I want Huntmaster in, no matter if I am R/G, R/g, or r/G. As others have said the math would be interesting to see in detail but I think it would hold throughout the curve. Interestingly wizards also views XY2 as more difficult than XX2 or X3 and is more comfortable increasing the power level. So while a certain gold card only goes in 10% of decks this article tells us we should not assume that all colored cards go in 20% of decks. More likely double cost cards should only be going in X/y decks which is 10%ish.
Again, I think taking the "average draft" into account has more to do with this issue than mana demand does. When you play with a full table of 8, having gold cards and off-color guild fixing table is no big deal at all. Everyone will still have enough fixers and enough on-color playables to sculpt a competitive deck. But the smaller the draft event gets, the more that flexibility shows its value. Cutting a gold card for a mono-colored card increases the overall playability of the card by about four times what it was before. When you're playing Winston, Sealed and 4-Man Drafts ...that can have a tremendous impact.
Quote from dschumm »
5. Hybrids
I have started sliding these in my main colors which is very controversial, but I like to cheat a little on my gold section. What is interesting from this article is that something like Boros Reckoner is probably better for my boros deck(mana wise) than RR1 or WW1 cards because I will always be dropping it turn 3 (not assuming colorless lands). I have been and will continue to be on the lookout for more hybrids and ways to get them in cube.
Agreed. But I like to "cheat" on gold the other way. I like to take opportunities to remove cards that see play in ~10% of the decks and replace it with a hybrid that can see play in ~70% instead. That does a much more efficient job of increasing playability than cutting mono-colored cards for hybrids does. And regardless of the cost, hybrid cards are still ideal in their respective guild decks because of how much easier it is to cast them there. Kitchen Finks, for example, needs 12 sources of green to have a ~75% chance of casting it on T3 in a Gruul deck (making it very hard to be included in the same deck as a Koth, for example), but will be able to be run out on T3 pretty much every time in a Selesnya deck, regardless of the color demand of your other spells.
Quote from dschumm »
6. Other Fixers
The analysis assumes just the lands for fixing with half a point credited to signets and such. I think there is a lot more too it than that and for me will be the biggest way this article impacts my cube. Each color has ways of dealing with this that need to be managed in addition to number of fixing lands in the cube.
Green: The most obvious. Card like birds of paradise are staples but there is a significant resistance to Sylvan Caryatid which I think should be a 360 staple. And for those 540 and above Utopia Tree an the like should be looked at. The Cultivate cards are obviously strong in this area. Mana elves allow GG1 and GG2 cards to be much easier than cards in other colors. I have had great success with Avacyn's Pilgrim and Noble Hieracrh and will be trying to find room for Elves of Deep Shadow and Deathrite Shaman. The enemy pairs are notoriously weak for lands and I actively encourage people to try Elves of Deep shadow instead of a subpar G/B land.
Blue: Card drawing and filtering. Why am I playing the Clique with double mana cards of other colors? I look at a heck of a lot more cards than the generic table above. Having recently acquired some new high power cards I have trimmed back on cantrips. Also I have added cards to go with Master of Waves. This article reminded me that I was being greedy and need to correct this.
Black: Black gets the occasional ritual or swamp fetcher but it mostly needs card drawing to pull into more fixing. With the heaviest color requirements I will continue to try to find ways to reward heavy black decks for thier dedication. I will also take a second look at unusal fixing like Crypt Ghast. Where black really shines is tutors, although not sexy, how many of us Demonic Tutor for a dual on turn 2 or 3 to fix the rest of our plays?
Red: Ut-Oh. The fastest, most aggro color in cube really doesn't have anything that can help it. I really wish wizards would print some better looters. But I think I just need to be upping the mountains in my deck. What I want is a a R1 2/2 haste looter once when it comes into play.
White: Not much better than red but it gets Land Tax like cards on occasion. The biggest advantage white has is the depth in it's aggro choices, allowing for the removal of WW cards.
There is a lot more too it than what's covered in this article. Just keep in mind that a lot of those cards won't be able to help your demand for the 1-3 turn range, so just be weary of that when becoming more "greedy" with your mana base.
White also has Eternal Dragon, which can really help secure the double-white for 3 and 4cc spells, as well as fixing your mana if you have dual lands. I'm usually willing to count it as a full source for cards with a CMC of 3 or higher too, because it's uncounterable and can't be destroyed. And if you want to push it even further, Weathered Wayfarer can be a really helpful cheap card in the same vein.
And red has Faithless Looting available to it, which can help get proper configurations of mana for turns 2-4.
Quote from dschumm »
7. Mono-Colored Decks
I really like drafting mono decks for the exact reason the author is here. I get to play all my cards! Now they are less sexy and very hard with a smaller table of drafters, I think putting rewards in for players who go that way is a good idea. Not only have they made a risky choice, but the data aboves says it could be a smart move many times. Additionally it has a side benefit of leaving more fixing in the pool for others. Not sure exactly what I mean by rewards, but I am already running Thassa and Porphorous. Other options like Crypt Ghast and Nythos, Shrine to Nix would excite my group.
We don't play a ton of mono-color decks, but we'll often play heavy color-committed decks and they yield the same results. Screw mana demand, I get to play all my cards!
Quote from dschumm »
8. Land Destruction
It strikes me that if fixing is so tenuous for players than disrupting that is something I want to be doing. In a general sense this makes me want to include a couple cards I removed because I didn't think the 'Land Destruction.dec' was coming together. Also Fulminator Mage is now one of my highest priority acquisition targets. And as we see increased fixing is important does it make other cards better(Blood Moon, Molten Rain, Spreading Seas, Kiora's Follower, Tutors).
If anything, this article should help illustrate why land destruction (even one in a game) can be devastating to the opponent ...and why it's so good for aggro. It seems like a lot of people are cutting these kinds of cards lately, but a Pillage can straight win a game against a player needing double-white for that Wrath of God. So can Avalance Riders–even if it just keep your opponent off their Gideon or Baneslayer.
Quote from dschumm »
9. XX and Aggro
The author posited that the forum is dismissive of fixing concerns but in the last year (I am new here) there has been a big house cleaning on XX cards, particularly in white. By removing those cards it has certainly helped aggro. Another thing besides cutting is making sure that I have enough redundancy. That way I can have opening hands with W,R,W1,R1,RR so that I can drop threats uninterrupted . Dropping the Ash Zelot on turn 3 or 4 is not ideal in the abstract but isn't a big deal if I have another quality 2 drop which came down in its place.
Both redundancy and not overdoing XX 2-drops are good for mitigating mana demand. By dismissive of mana issues, I was more referring to the prioritization of mana fixing lands, the assumption of the "free splash" and the lack of impact colorless lands have. More of a drafting/deck-building concern than a lack of understanding from a design standpoint. Hope that clarifies.
Quote from dschumm »
10. Cuts
The author is going after gold, and that is certainly fine for his group I am going to look at my XX cards again but more importantly my XX1 and XX2. These cards really need to be better than X2 and X3 cards. They also need to be cards that are designed to be in the primary color combination than in the secondary or splash. Changes will probably be subtle but I need to realize that many/most of the time these cards will not come down on curve. I also need to reexamine the purpose of heavy requirement cards. Geralf's Messenger stays for me as my group likes it as more of a combo/reach card, cheating it, reanimating and all forms of goofy. But for groups that are on black aggro, you better see a lot of Mono-B otherwise it is gone. Cards with a back up plans are great. My hearld of torment didn't come down on 3, but I get a second black at turn 5, no problem.
Again, the article is designed more to raise awareness of mana demand in drafting and deck-building to help cube drafters dodge the "traps" that the cube can so subtly set up for them. It's not really written with the intention of having cube managers conduct a witch hunt and start purging gold cards and color-demanding cards.
Quote from dschumm »
11. Colorless cards and Phrexian Mana
I just don't have the room for colorless lands that are not amazing. This math reinforces something I have felt for a while. If someone told me they didn't put the colorless manlands in their 360 I would understand. Scary right? These cards are either taking up spell slots or you have specific decks that can handle the colorless mana. For me they are frequently a good 18th land but I see many people playing 8/8/Mutavault decks and cringe.
Dear wizards, make more aggro artifact creatures. The flip side of the above argument is the increased value of cards that don't care what lands you have. Porcelain Legionnaire and Phyrexian Metamorph are great in aggro decks because they really fill holes well. I will be doing another sweep of unassuming completetly functional cheaper artifact creatures to include. Epocrocite is a card I can't recommend enough.
Every last bit of this right here. Tapping exclusively for colorless mana is a significant drawback for a land to have. And colorless casting costs/options are amazing upsides. Well said. Additionally, I'll sign that petition for more colorless aggro cards as soon as you draft it up and get ready to send it to Wizards.
Quote from dschumm »
In conclusion (if you have read this far). The math is an important thing to keep in mind as a cube designer and player. The demands from the author's group bring it into high clarity but it all reinforces that fundamental cube concepts "What kind of experiences do you want players to have?" and "What challenges should they face?"
Exactly right. Mana demand isn't an impossible task to hurdle. It's simply something that players and cube managers need to be aware of so they can get the most fulfilling experiences from their cube drafts.
Excellent article. Thanks for this. I've gotten some of my new cubers to prioritize drafting fixing so those cards are already extremely hard to come by. I'm looking forward to your results of testing Tendo Ice Bridge. I'm already considering if maybe I should add another cycle of guild lands to my cube. Eesh!
Excellent article. Thanks for this. I've gotten some of my new cubers to prioritize drafting fixing so those cards are already extremely hard to come by. I'm looking forward to your results of testing Tendo Ice Bridge. I'm already considering if maybe I should add another cycle of guild lands to my cube. Eesh!
Glad it was of some value to you and your group. Please report any results you have with potential changes in either cube design or draft habits, and let me know what works and what doesn't!
As requested, I am not going to get into detail about all the wrong numbers in your results here.
I think the issue will revolve more around me correctly identifying what they represent. I will offer my thanks to you ahead of time in regards to getting clearer identification on them.
Quote from eidolon232 »
I highly doubt that somebody is designing (as in not just throwing together the cards that they have lying around/ copying a list) a cube without understanding the basic math for this game.
Agreed. I think the article was designed more towards helping people understand mana source demand for drafting and deckbuilding, rather than design.
Quote from eidolon232 »
How about your life total? ;-)
No seriously, are you saying that you drawing the right amount of lands changes the chance of winning more than the deck choice? For reference, in Constructed, the win percentage of a deck against its best matchup is about 70% (if you are only considering mainstream decks).
No, simply that once the deck has been built, and the matchup is going to be what it is, you having access to the mana to cast your spells has a tremendous impact on the outcome of the average game.
Quote from eidolon232 »
Sure, but the mana fixing, be it from lands, direct mana fixing or indirect mana fixing in the form of card draw and library manipulation plays a big part in most cubes, allowing players to look at color intensive cards in a very different light.
Imo Inquisition of Kozilek and Soltari Priest are relatively bad examples for cards that you want to play immediately, since when it is important what you hit instead of if you hit, it is often correct to save up discard spells for later in the game (e.g. casting IoK on turn 3 otp against a blue deck to increase the chance of hitting a counter that is threatening to deny you from casting a 4 drop that they can't handle.) As an "unblockable" creature, the Soltari has a constant damage/turn output, while unevasive low drops often can't get in for damage anymore as the game progresses.
Agreed on both accounts. Obviously resource management needs to take into account the ability to cast the non-land sources in addition to your overall number of sources and your color breakdown.
And ya, those examples aren't perfect. Change it to a Carnophage and an Ash Zealot.
Quote from eidolon232 »
You are only talking about casting a single card on curve. If you want to really curve out (as in casting a 1,2,3,4 drop in consecutive turns) adding more than 17 lands is actually worse. Anyway, can you explain what the table is supposed to display, since the numbers don't really match what I have in mind.
I did a poor job of explaining that chart. It's simply for identifying the chances of playing lands on the given turn. Not necessarily casting a specific card or curving from one CMC to the next. Picture the data applying to your chances of activating a Dust Bowl on T4 instead. No other cards need be considered. Just hitting your lands.
Quote from eidolon232 »
5+ mana cards (and to a lesser extend the 4s as well) are not designed to be reliably cast on curve, since the effective mana cost of cards doesn't increase linear. This is why the 4 mana cards are so overrepresented in cubes: they can be really devastating if cast an curve, because people not being able to do so all the time has been considered when they were designed, but you still get the opportunity to do so a high percentage of the time - especially with all the acceleration available. In the most basic model, you simply assume that you run out of lands on turn 4 and everything else has to be cast with the mana sources that you naturally draw, meaning that a cmc 5 mana card effectively costs 6 mana, a 6 costs 8 mana, and so on.
Correct. Your chances of curving into a 5-drop by just playing 5 lands turn after turn on T5 is hard enough as it is. The individual color charts simply represent how often you'll have 2 sources of green available by T5 if one of your cards is a double-green card. For example, it might tell me what my chances of being able to cast a Strangleroot Geist will be if I care about being able to cast that spell on T5. Not necessarily specifically casting a 5cc card on T5. Another thing that needs better clarification.
Quote from eidolon232 »
When you are including nonland mana sources to ramp out some expensive cards / have a mana advantage over your opponent, it is only logical that they don't compete with your regular mana sources.
Correct. But if I have an Elspeth I'm trying to cast, cards like Eternal Dragon and Coldsteel Heart can help mitigate some of the source requirements for white. Not in direct competition with the lands in order to reach a total number of mana sources.
Quote from eidolon232 »
I don't think that you should only present the data for being on the play, since decks are getting adjusted preboard.
I know, but as I explained in the article, I wanted to include examples of the most demanding of the predictable situations you can find yourself in. As a safety net.
Quote from eidolon232 »
It would surprise me if anybody would look at Geralf's Messenger as anything other than a 5 drop (outside of mono).
The color requirements of a cards are less important the turn you can cast it according to their cmc, but more when you actually reach that much mana: A Vampire Nighthawk gets worse in relation to other 3 drops in a deck with a bunch of mana elves, while you have more time than 6 turns to find 3 black for Massacre Wurm.
This is absolutely true, and was not forgotten. The chart lets me know how many sources of black I'd need to have BB by T3 assuming one of my cards was a BB card. Not accounting for the inability to secure 3 sources simultaneously. Exchange the Nighthawk for a Hymn to Tourach, and the numbers in the chart apply better.
Quote from eidolon232 »
I would focus more on the percentage of the time where the color requirements (and you have enough mana to cast a card with the same cmc) are an issue when you have the card in your hand.
They do, but in an off-hand way. Take the Hymn example above. Perhaps you're okay calculating the odds for Hymn based on casting it on T4. That's where the 10 sources indicated in the double-color chart apply. That accounts for the Hymn being one of your drawn cards, and taking the rest of the results out of 39 cards, with the 7 other cards you've seen by T2, and needing 2 sources.
So with the Hymn example, the chart would be used as follows:
1. Assume 1 drawn card is Hymn to Tourach.
2. Consult the chart to find out how many sources of black you'd need to include in order to have a ≥75% of having 2 sources of black by that given turn (on the play).
3. If you want it to be cast reliably by T2, look to include 13 sources. If you want to cast the drawn card by T4, you can lower the number to 10. Different spells will have different acceptable ranges at which you're comfortable casting them, based on a ton of different factors, as you alluded to above.
Thanks so much for the detailed feedback! We can work out through PM what clarification I should provide to better illustrate what the numbers represent.
I have been playing Magic since beta and I have never thought about deck construction in quite this way. It really makes you analyze what you are pulling from the pack. That being said, my group hardly ever plays more than a two color deck so I like most of the cards in my cube despite the hard realities. Maybe my group, which is totally casual, is more for the greedy splashy spells that the on curve players.
It does make me happy that I made the right choice with including the vivid lands. They really shored up my mana fixing since foil fetch lands are still too expensive for their inclusion -- c'mon reprint!
I have been playing Magic since beta and I have never thought about deck construction in quite this way. It really makes you analyze what you are pulling from the pack. That being said, my group hardly ever plays more than a two color deck so I like most of the cards in my cube despite the hard realities. Maybe my group, which is totally casual, is more for the greedy splashy spells that the on curve players.
It does make me happy that I made the right choice with including the vivid lands. They really shored up my mana fixing since foil fetch lands are still too expensive for their inclusion -- c'mon reprint!
I like the article a lot. These are good numbers, for sure. There have been cases where I've skirted past mana restrictions because engines and archetypes within the strategy allow me to try and tackle both (say, a dedicated reanimator deck that can also cast Phyrexian Obliterator, or one that has multiple ways to pitch your off-color creatures and only cast them in the rarest of cases) but it certainly is important to keep mana restrictions in mind for the fairer decks and the ones that only have the cheating aspects as a feature and not a main component.
This article also makes me a little sick since I realize how lucky some opponents--and myself--have gotten with mana bases in the past. Sonnuvaguns "splashing" cryptic command grumble grumble...
I like the article a lot. These are good numbers, for sure. There have been cases where I've skirted past mana restrictions because engines and archetypes within the strategy allow me to try and tackle both (say, a dedicated reanimator deck that can also cast Phyrexian Obliterator, or one that has multiple ways to pitch your off-color creatures and only cast them in the rarest of cases) but it certainly is important to keep mana restrictions in mind for the fairer decks and the ones that only have the cheating aspects as a feature and not a main component.
This article also makes me a little sick since I realize how lucky some opponents--and myself--have gotten with mana bases in the past. Sonnuvaguns "splashing" cryptic command grumble grumble...
There are a myriad of factors that influence your mana demand and this article only touches on a few.
Glad you found the information helpful!
I've also seen (and gotten away with myself) some really greedy splashing. Sometimes it works, and other times you're stuck with cards you can't cast.
..........
As an aside, I'm going to include some extra information in the article (I'll "box" the new content in) that will help to clarify what the numbers mean, and how they can be of use to you.
One thing I kept coming back to was how this would be affected by mulligans. 1-, 6- and 7- landers will always get sent back into mulligans, and a lot of other hands too. Did you think about this?
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I opted to stick to a high conservative value and always assume I'm on the play. I wanted these numbers to assume the most demanding average situation, because there's a whole grip of factors that change them.
Quote from trogdoor »
...what composition of cards will make our deck the best...
That will vary a lot from deck to deck, from factors including the deck theater and archetype all the way down to what the most important/powerful spell is in the deck.
Why would the number of color-intensive cards change the results? I may have 1 CC card that I need to play by T2, and others that can wait until later. The number of double-color cards can change how I choose to set my mana demand, but it doesn't have to.
In other words, because you have a 2 card in your hand that you can play on T2, it doesn't change the fact that you'll want to include enough sources in your deck to also cast the BB card. The tables are about having options available to you, not running the minimum number of sources required to cast just any spell on-curve, but to cast your target spell on curve.
Example: If I determine that I want to play Sinkhole by T2 when I'm on the play, the value to do so ≥75% of the time is 13 sources. Other factors not included (mulligans, T1 card draw, disruption, T1 fetchlands, etc).
Introduction
It’s been a long time between major articles for me, largely in part because I’ve been waiting to be able to discuss a topic that can be really beneficial to the cube community as a whole. Over the past year, I’ve been tracking discussions that I’ve had with other cube managers regarding how to properly sculpt a mana base that’s appropriate for the kinds of decks the cube tends to create. What I’ve found is that the cube community tends to criminally undervalue the importance of mana fixing, and a good portion of the evaluation is probably based on a misunderstanding of the real requirements for casting spells. I had never spent the time to crunch the numbers and find out how demanding the spells the cube plays can be on their respective mana bases, and I learned a lot from this study myself. Information I wish I could unlearn sometimes, as the numbers turned out to be pretty ruthless and unforgiving.
High level tournament players already understand the numbers this article will present to you. Especially players that focus a lot of their professional development on limited. But the cube is largely a casual format, and studies in resource management aren’t a big part of a casual player’s focus. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to win games when we sit down to draft the cube. There’s no single aspect of Magic that correlates with your win/loss ratio more than your mana (particularly in casual play). Mana screw and mana flood lead to a ton of losses on their own; so it’s best not to compound those issues with being unable to reliably cast your spells. But even for players that are familiar with the basic mana requirements for traditional limited face new challenges when drafting cube. Why? Because the cube is jammed with color-demanding spells that present a whole new set of challenges to properly cast. Wizards creates (or tries to create, at least) limited environments where players will be able to cast their spells. The common slots aren’t typically jammed with double-color 2, 3 and 4-drops, and the average 2-color deck in draft and sealed deck can survive with the mana base you can sculpt with your free basics. The cube isn’t as forgiving. You need to resolve powerful spells to compete, and often enough, those spells require a stronger dedication to its respective color.
This article will hopefully help people identify color-demand and mana source issues, as well as providing some options to help mitigate the issue during the drafting and deck construction process. The first thing to do is to determine how comfortable you are with the greed inherent in the resource department. Then use that information to determine the minimum required sources, and how that information can influence your drafting and deck-building processes to put a deck together that can reliably cast its spells. Without further ado, I’ll start giving you the information that my study unveiled.
Part I: “Do I feel lucky?...”
Typically speaking, cube drafters can be divided into two categories in terms of how comfortable they are with the spells they opt to play. Conservative players (like myself) try to build my decks with consistency in mind. I want to be able to cast all my spells. I want to be able to cast all my spells on curve. I want to have flexible and reliable cards that will give me the highest average performance. Other players are more comfortable being as greedy as possible. Their primary concerns are playing the most powerful spells possible. They’d rather have a lower percentage chance of casting the spell on curve if the result when it happens has a greater impact on the game. For the purposes of this article, “Conservative” players will want to include cards in their final 40 that they’ll be able to cast in roughly 75% of the cases where the option to do so presents itself. Whereas “Greedy” players are looking to do so with anything more than 50% of the time. So the term “conservative value” essentially equate to ≥75%, and the “greedy values” are >50%. Keep that in mind when the numbers come up later on in the article.
There are definitely cases where both can apply in the same deck. Cards that are critical to the deck’s success can have their mana requirements evaluated based on conservative values, and high-impact “splash” cards you might be more willing to assign a greedy casting value to. Only you can determine how comfortable you are with each type of spell, and it will vary from player to player. For example, I might use a conservative value when determining how many sources I need to play my Inquisition of Kozilek, because it’s a spell I want to play immediately once it’s available. Whereas a card like Balance might be able to wait for proper timing, and has such an incredible impact on the game that I’m willing to build greedily just to have the spell available. Additionally, the numbers can also be warped based on redundancy inside your deck. Casting a Soltari Priest on curve is critical to your deck if you have the bare minimum number of 2-drops available to you at your disposal. But if it’s the only mana-demanding 2-drop in your deck, and you have a ton of other more easily castable options available to you, it might be okay to be slightly more greedy with your white sources. It will change from deck to deck, based on redundancy and how critical a particular spell is to the success of your game plan.
Before we talk about determining how many sources of each color are required, have you ever calculated how difficult it might be to simply play a land each turn? Take a look at this table and see how many sources your deck might need:
As you can see, if resolving that 4-drop is critical to the success of your deck, is running a 17 land mana base really the best way to go? Are you okay with being unable to play that 4-drop on turn 4 almost 30% of the time? How many other 3cc options are in your deck? Are the 4-drops in your final 40 critical to the game plan you’ve established? Do you have any non-land mana sources that you can use to raise those numbers on the back end of your curve? All of those questions need to be evaluated when you’re determining how many total lands you’re adding into your deck.
One more quick thing before I move onto the color-demand numbers: Non-land mana sources. As a general rule of thumb, non-land mana sources are less reliable than your land base. For me, I count each two non-land sources as one true “source” when calculating demand. If my demand requires 18 sources because my 4-drops are critical to my success, I’d be comfortable with 17 lands and two mana rocks, but not 17 lands and one mana rock. Why? Because there’s a fundamental risk of losing those sources to removal, counter-magic and other forms of mitigation from your opponent. So be weary of overconfidence and/or an over-reliance on your non-land mana sources when determining overall mana source demand or color-source demand. That Coldsteel Heart can be a great source of the second color for your 4-drop, until your opponent’s Manic Vandal crushes it and you’re left with an uncastable spell that was critical to your survival. An 18th or even 19th overall mana source (matching the color of the color-demanding spell) can be the difference between winning and losing that game.
Part II: “Never tell me the odds.”
This section will cover the mana source requirements for any given spell you might want to cast. Reminder: the green values indicate the conservative values. That’s a ≥75% chance of having that number of sources on a given turn. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be able to cast the spell (see the total mana source chart above) but simply have the minimum required sources of that color to cast it, assuming you have enough overall mana sources available to do so. The red values are the greedy numbers; a >50% chance of having the number of sources of the respective color to cast it if you have enough total sources of mana available (and as the chart indicated above, that can be a BIG if). Also a reminder that these stats assume you’re on the play. They can taper down by a source (or sometimes two) if you want to assume you’ll be on the draw, but that doesn’t seem like a fair way to evaluate the requirements. If I can’t reliably cast my spells on the play, what’s the benefit of being on the play to begin with? These numbers assume the most demanding of the predictable situations you might find yourself in.
These will be the easiest of all your spells to cast. But as you can see, the values for the conservative numbers are still higher than I wanted to see. Typically speaking, the 1- and 2-drops are paramount to the success of your deck, because a proper curve is really important. Aggressive decks in particular can ill-afford to fail to cast their 1-drops. So if you’re running a 2-color aggro deck that contains 1cc cards of both colors, you need a minimum of an 8/8 split to reliably cast any given 1-drop in your deck. Sucks, doesn’t it? Sorry to say, but it doesn’t get any easier from here.
There are three things you need in order to cast a spell. 1) You need the spell in your hand. 2) You need enough sources of colored mana to meet the colored mana cost requirements. 3) You need enough total sources of mana to meet the converted mana cost requirements. The numbers in these charts cover the first two requirements ONLY.
Example: Hymn to Tourach
Lets say that I have a Hymn that I want to include in my deck, and I want to make sure I have enough sources of black to cast it. First, determine on what turn you're willing to wait to cast the spell on (this will vary from spell to spell) and then consult the chart for the Two Source Values (because it requires two sources of black). If it's a spell that needs to be played on turn 2 in order to be valuable enough for inclusion, the number will be quite high. But Hymn is a spell that's powerful enough (even when cast in the mid/late-game) that I'd be willing to cast it somewhere around turn 4 or turn 5 and still be happy with the results. So the color cost requirements drop, because it's a easier to meet your color requirements the deeper into the game you get. If the card were a Sinkhole instead, I might not be as willing to cast it in the later stages of the game. So I'd check the values required for reliably casting it on turn 2 (or maybe turn 3) instead.
So again, the data isn't for determining your total number of mana sources required to play a 5cc card on turn 5, but simply calculating your color demand for playing a card with that number of mana sources in it by a given turn. It's up to you to determine how many total mana sources you'll want to include.
These are the most important stats, and they were the eye-opening values that really made me re-evaluate my mana demand in the cube. You’re reading them right. That same Soltari Priest we were discussing earlier requires 13 sources of white in your deck in order to conservatively cast it on turn 2. 3cc cards with a double mana requirement need 12 sources to have 2 sources by turn 3. So lets look at this objectively, and be honest now. How many decks have you played that contained a card like Soltari Priest and Vendilion Clique simultaneously? Did you realize that it requires a 13/12 mana base to reliably cast them? That’s not casting both, mind you, just one or the other. Curving from an XX 2-drop INTO a 1XX 3-drop of a different color is exponentially more difficult. A 13/12 split just gives you the ability to cast one of the two on curve if you draw it. But even with this information available, and avoiding decks with that demand, look at the requirements for a 1XX 3-drop and a 2XX 4-drop in the same deck. We create decks like that all the time. That requires a 12/10 split. How many of us are honestly creating decks with that good a mana base? Want your Azorius tempo decks to contain a Brimaz, King of Oreskos and a Sower of Temptation and be able to reliably cast either of them if they’re drawn? I do too. But I’ll be hard-pressed to create that kind of mana base in the vast majority of my drafts.
Here’s where it just gets silly. If playing that Geralf's Messenger on turn 3 is critical to the success of your deck, you better be playing mono-black, and have zero colorless lands in there. Or what about Cryptic Command? If your deck isn’t heavily rooted in blue, the chance of reliably playing it on turn 4 shrinks significantly. Keep that in mind when you grab a Command for your U/X deck and want to ...you know... play it.
Folks, this is why we don’t play cards with quad mana sources. That Phyrexian Obliterator requires more sources of black to play on curve than you have total mana sources in your deck. And Cloudthresher can really only be played in mono-green. Pass.
So what does this all mean?
Part III: “My God man, I’m a cube drafter, not a statistician!”
Those numbers mean one thing; I need to pay more attention to my mana bases when I’m drafting cube. This isn’t a format won on the back of Pillarfield Oxen, I need to be able to play those Elspeth, Knight-Errants instead. So what can I do to ensure I can? What steps can I take to mitigate those mana-demanding cards?
During the deck construction process, evaluate how critical a given mana-demanding spell is for the success of the deck. If you can elect to pass on a double-color card in your secondary color, you’ll probably have to do it. But how do you make that determination? If you’re staring down at a True-Name Nemesis and a Mirran Crusader, and your 4cc section contains an Elspeth, Knight-Errant and a Fact or Fiction, you might have to elect to leave the Nemesis out of your final 40. Why? Because you can keep only one of your two colors as the demanding color. If you can meet the requirements for the Crusader, you can meet the requirements for your Elspeth. But if you elect to run enough sources to cast the Nemesis on curve, you might be deficient for two spells in your other color now. A lot of the decision-making process will be governed by how much mana-fixing you drafted, and how important your color-demanding spells are to your deck. All of us want to automatically slot the most powerful spells in wherever available, but doing so will often lead to you having spells in your final 40 you can’t reliably cast. Nothing costs you a game more often than mana issues will. So avoid them wherever possible. Maybe I need to be running 1-2 more lands in each deck than I’ve been doing historically in order to curb the mana requirements. Something to keep in mind.
The easiest place to mitigate these issues is during the draft process. Once you’ve taken some color-demanding cards, use that as a benchmark to determine what your “primary” color will be. This will be the color that needs ~12 sources to play the spells you’ve elected to draft. Don’t take the Vendilion Clique from the pack (even for your R/U tempo/aggro deck!) if you already have an Ash Zealot, Sulfuric Vortex and Koth of the Hammer you know you’re gonna want to play. Because you won’t be able to cast the damn thing, even with an above-average mana base. And the #1 thing to take away from this article? Prioritize your mana fixing. There are very few cards in the cube that I’d be willing to pass an on-color fixing land to take. No card is worth taking if it means that the end result will be having multiple cards in your deck that you’re now incapable of reliably casting.
I think cube drafters are too often invested in what they consider to be “free splashes”. It’s really rare for a splash to ever be truly free. Even looking at the least color demanding card you can possibly splash (lets say that you wanted to splash a Meloku the Clouded Mirror and are willing to wait until turn 6 to cast it) you’re still looking at a minimum of 4 sources of your now 3rd color in order to do so. You might be able to do that with proper fixing if neither of your two primary colors have any color-demanding cards in them, but that’s going to be really unlikely. And even if you can, and you meet the minimum qualifications for both your other colors to be conservative, there’s still room for improvement on the front of your two primary colors. Remember that even the conservative numbers are ~75% chance of being able to play them. That means that a quarter of the time, you still won’t be able to cast that Vendilion Clique on turn 3 even if you have 12 sources of blue in your deck! So most of the time, adding a 13th or 14th source of blue will be better for your deck than adding in the additional sources to reach the minimum requirements for your splash card. Especially if your primary color has more than one double-color costed card in it, or if you’re trying to run double-color cards in your secondary color at the same time (which we often do).
In that same vein, lands that tap for colorless mana have a significant impact on your mana base. They’re not “free” inclusions at all. Lets say that you build a “good” mana base. You draft 4 mana-fixing lands, and you’re playing a typical 17-land deck. That means that if you split your basic lands in a 9/4 way, you’ll have 13 sources of your primary color (so you can cast your Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary) and 8 sources of your secondary color (so you can play 1-drops of that color, like a Thoughtseize, for example). That leaves zero room for colorless lands, and zero room for double-color cards in your second color. In a deck with 4 mana-fixing lands! Lets say that you are really careful when you’re drafting. Your most mana-demanding card in your primary color is a 1XX 3-drop, and your secondary color has no double-color cards, and no 1-drops. You’ll need to build a 12/7 split to include something like Phyrexian Arena and Looter il-Kor in the same deck. With 3 mana-fixing lands, you can run a 9/4 split on basics and be able to do it perfectly. But again, that’s with no colorless lands, and a very conservative drafting/deck-building process with a really low color demand. The eye-opener for me was the stats on running a 1XX 3-drop and a 2XX 4-drop in the same deck (who doesn’t want to curve from a Pillage into a Braids, Cabal Minion?). That requires a 12/10 split. With 5 mana-fixing lands, I can do it with a 7/5 basic split. Five fixing lands. FIVE. Anything less, and I’ll be deficient in one of the two colors. No colorless lands. No splash color. No double-color 2-drops. Ouch.
The last thing I’ll touch on is how this can potentially impact cube design. Am I running enough mana-fixing lands to have each player reliably acquire 3-4 on-color fixers in every draft? Are there too many color-demanding 2-4cc cards in the list? Are there too many multicolor cards that may be traps for players trying to “splash” them? Are there too many lands that tap for colorless mana? Am I running enough non-land cards that can fix my mana to help mitigate the source requirements? I’m in the process of answering some of those questions right now. And most of those questions I fail to answer positively, if I’m being completely honest with myself.
In conclusion...
I hope this information is valuable to you other cube managers and cube drafters. I have observed a pattern of dismissive attitudes when it comes to mana requirements throughout the entire cube community. On this site, on other sites, and even from the professional Magic players that dabble in cube drafts. I’ve always prioritized mana fixing, but still found myself deficient on source requirements in the majority of my drafts. Even with other players undervaluing their importance. And that was before crunching the numbers. The study was eye-opening for me, and the impact it has on everything from cube design to the drafting and deck-building procedures will be significant for me and my playgroup.
Please feel free to provide feedback and commentary! Thanks for reading. Cheers, and happy cubing.
..........
Interested in the math behind the charts? Here's a brief summary of how they were calculated:
For the chart regarding playing lands on a given turn: the Population Size was set to 40, the Successes In Population was set to X (whatever the values were for that given source number), the Sample Size was set to 7 for turn 1 + 1 for each additional turn afterward, and the Successes In Sample were set to the target value for the turn (the number would be 3 for turn 3, as an example). The Probability demonstrated was the ≥ value, because it simply needed to establish drawing at least X lands by a given turn, not exactly X by a given turn, so the results checked were Cumulative Probability: P(X > x).
Now, for the charts regarding having X colored sources by a given turn: the Population Size was set to 39 (to accommodate for the remaining pool after the card you're attempting to cast had been drawn), the Successes In Population was set to X (the number of sources of that color in the remaining 39 cards), the Sample Size was set to 6 for turn 1 + 1 for each additional turn afterward (because one of the drawn cards is the spell you've drawn that you want to play), and the Successes In Sample were set to the minimum number of colored sources needed to cast the spell. The Probability demonstrated was the ≥ value, because it simply needed to establish drawing at least X sources of a given color by a given turn, not exactly X by a given turn, so the results checked were Cumulative Probability: P(X > x).
Both charts were generated with the assumption that the player is on the play.
Hope that helps to clarify things a bit!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
This reminds me of a card purge in the peasant cube community about half a year ago. A bunch of us cut most if not all the double-colored two-drops from our cubes and instantly got better results out of everyone's decks, particularly aggro (because there's less untapped fixing for aggro). Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here for all cubes that cards with multiple colored symbols are a significantly higher drawback than most people believe, doubly so when those cards must be played on curve to have effectiveness.
It also highlights our discussions about splashing and how many players are too eager to splash another color. Again, there is a very real cost to doing so.
Cubetutor link - 380 Peasant Cube
Also need to throw a shout-out to Eidolon, who I had to PM several times when calculating this stuff so he could help me wrap my poor pea-brain around some of the statistics, and how to properly use the hypergrometric calculator.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/other-formats/mtgo-pauper/developing/647850-primer-angler-delver
Modern: Sultai Death's Shadow
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/deck-creation-modern/773885-sultai-deaths-shadow-bug-aggro]
Legacy: Snake&Show
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27217-Deck-Sneak-and-Show
Discuss my Cube @ MTGsalvation:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=207309
Glad it was valuable!
If it helped to inspire any changes, or you use the information to change the draft/deck-building process at all, PLEASE comment back here and let me know. I'm interested in how others will use the information, and it it'll ultimately help to make decks more consistent.
It wasn't necessarily written to start a witch hunt for all the mana-demanding cards in the cube, but just to be aware of the difficulties they can present to the drafters. Command is a really powerful spell; probably good enough that it's worth keeping around for any decks that are capable of casting it. It's one of those cards that's worth calculating your sources based on the "greedy" values for, IMHO.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
You allude to it in the article but Reason nails a key issue here: these difficulties are much more significant for aggro decks. I think it is why I like the pain lands: control is often reluctant to pick them leaving aggro with more fixing.
A gold analysis would be interesting.
Thanks for the article!
My 380 Beginners’ Cube on Cube Tutor
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
You're very welcome! Glad it was enjoyable.
True, the main reason why it was excluded was for simplicity's sake. Keeping the focus on mana-demanding cards and the separation between primary and secondary colors was really the big thing I was trying to tackle.
Ya, C/Ubes have a really hard time with the aggressive 2-color 2-drops because so much of the playable fixing in that format ETBT. They really need to print the painlands as uncommons one of these days.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I'm glad it's helpful to you. Geist is good even away from T2, which is another important factor that can change how many sources you truly "require" in order to want to play it. There are several cards that can do this in the cube.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
My feelings exactly, man. It's not about axing a ton of good cards from the cube. It's about drafting and deckbuilding with this information in mind so you can build your manabase and/or exclude cards from your final 40 that are too color demanding. This article was simply about awareness.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I'll try to give some constructive criticism.
On one hand, I'm a bit surprised at your surprise. A lot of your math boils down to the following rule of thumb: "Try to avoid playing double-colored mana spells costing 4 or less in more than one color". I think a lot of Limited players, consciously or intuitively, follow such a rule of thumb. Of course, it's still very useful to see the math behind this rule.
On the other hand, I do think you're a bit too pessimistic, or rather, you're having unrealistic expectations of what a "functioning manabase" is, i.e. demanding that a spell can be cast "on curve" more than 75% of the time is a very high bar to set.
I see two (closely related) reasons for this:
(i) unless I'm misunderstanding your calculations, your percentages answer the question "Given a certain manabase and given I have card A in hand, what's the probability that I'll have the correct mana available on the turn number equal to A's CMC?" This question doesn't take into account the fact that if you fail to have the right mana on curve, you'll sometimes/often have other spells to cast (in your other color(s) or with easier mana requirements), mitigating the negative consequences of not casting A on curve. In other words, you don't necessarily lose the game or fall significantly behind in every case you fail to cast one specific card in your hand on curve;
(ii) many cards in Cube don't lose much efficiency when cast "off curve", or are even meant not to be cast on curve. You mention the best example, Balance, in your article, but the same goes for most spells, and even most creatures. For example, True-Name Nemesis is a relevant threat and/or defensive card at all stages of the game. Sure, your control deck can lose a game because you didn't have the 2nd blue mana to drop it on T3 against an aggro opponent, but often, you'll draw into the required mana later on and be fine (in the sense that your card will still have a relevant effect on the game).
That said, your analysis is absolutely very relevant for two specific sets of cards, cheap aggressive creatures and answers to cheap aggressive creatures. In an aggro deck, not curving out due to mana issues will often mean putting insufficient pressure on your opponent to win the game before his more powerful expensive cards take over. Conversely, not being able to cast your Wrath of God on T4 against a curved-out aggro deck will probably lose you the game on the spot. That is the nature of a match-up where the fundamental strategy of one deck is to cast all its spells as soon as possible and have the game end with the opponent having unused/unusable resources left over.
The same applies more or less to any other early threat that requires an immediate answer, for example a Tinker-ed robot or a T1/T2 Planeswalker via broken artifact mana.
Now, if you craft a Cube environment where the early turns are extremely important (because of aggro decks and/or early broken plays being common), then many of your games will end or be essentially decided on T4/T5, and the problem you identify will become more pronounced, so mana fixing will become more important. Conversely, if the "fundamental turn" of your Cube is increased by one, you get one more draw step to "fix" your mana, and the tables in the article show that this makes a significant difference.
I think that may be a useful additional point to take away from the analysis: the faster your Cube environment, the more mana fixing you need.
More in general, mana issues have always been a part of Magic, and many games are won and lost because of them. The question is: how big of a problem do you think this is and how far do you want to go to fix it? Overloading on mana fixing in the Cube itself may be a solution, but it leads to its own problems (one of which is "boring packs" with nothing but mana fixing). If you want to eliminate most mana problems, you could do something extreme like letting each player, after the draft, add up to four of any one dual land to his pool. That way, you can count on a reliable 2-color manabase without having to add a bunch of mana fixing to your Cube in the place of more exciting cards (which are why we play Cube, after all, right?).
To finish, some minor nitpicks with, or easy improvements to, the article:
In the first table, you say you need 18 mana sources to have a 77% chance of having 4 on T4; in the Phyrexian Obliterator example, you say you need 19 Swamps to have a >75% chance to cast it on T4. That can't both be correct.
Unnecessary hyperbole. Your own table shows that if you have 12 Blue sources (that's not "almost entirely mono-blue") you still have a better than 50% shot at casting it on T4 (that's not "close to nil").
Poorly chosen example, since you almost never play Snapcaster Mage on T2. Point still stands, obviously.
Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way; I think your article contains a lot of very insightful ideas on Cube design, drafting, and deck building, so it certainly is recommended reading!
A Comprehensive list of Cube Archetypes
Thanks! Always good to get detailed feedback.
Very true. But as I mentioned in the article, the cube is largely a casual format, and not all casual players have calculated their mana source requirements before. Additionally, the cube has far more traps set up for players to fall into when it comes to mana issues than regular limited does, based on how Wizards constructs their sets vs what you see in the cube. Lastly, I've always been aware of running double-color 2-drops are a no-no to run with double color cards of your second color. But I wasn't fully aware of the math behind running say a Silverblade Paladin and a Koth of the Hammer in the same deck, and how heavy the requirements are to pair those two up.
I don't think it should be. Having colored sources available to cast my spells on curve 75% of the time shouldn't be hard to do. But it is. And not only that, but it doesn't compound with overall source requirements that can lessen the reliability even more. Sometimes those numbers aren't as important because of the redundancy you might have in a given role or given CMC, but other times, curving your cards is paramount. And 75% shouldn't be too much to ask.
2 things here. 1) I covered that in the article. Redundancy can sometimes allow you to be more greedy with your mana. But 2) it depends greatly on the spell being cast. It's all well and good that you have another 4-drop in your hand that may be easier to cast than Wrath of God, but that doesn't matter at all if the spell you need to play is the one with the more mana-demanding cost. Which given the effect that a lot of the mana demanding cards have, can often be the case.
This is also true, and it was covered in the article. Off-curve impact and redundancy can both influence your mana demands. Most every card will still be relevant later on. But the impact it can have on curve vs the impact that it can have later on can be night/day, and I think it's still important to give yourself options. You limit what spells you can play in what places in the curve if you don't meet your mana demands.
This analysis is spot-on. Thank you for identifying and clarifying those points.
This is absolutely true as well. It becomes more important on both sides of the battlefield the faster the game gets.
I think the approach needs to be a combination of the two. First, ensure that you have enough mana that players can expect to get the minimum amount they need on average to construct a mana base that will work for the average cube deck. Once that's accomplished, it's about educating the players on how the drafting and deckbuilding process can influence the consistency of their decks. And of course, having players properly prioritize manabases.
Actually, it is correct. The table for overall mana sources isn't assuming you have a spell you need to cast on each turn. That table doesn't give you the information about casting a 4cc card on T4, but simply having 4 lands on T4. Whereas in the Obliterator example, it assumes one of your drawn cards is the Obliterator that requires the BBBB, so the values come from seeing 9 other cards from the remaining pool of 39 cards, vs simply having 4 lands, which looks for 4 success out of the 10 cards you've seen of the 40-card pool.
Correct. It's not close to nil, only difficult to cast. Having a spell in my deck that half the time I'm unable to cast on curve isn't what I'd consider to be reliable. But you're still right. A blue heavy deck still has a chance of playing it on T4, and it gets more reasonable from there as the game goes on. I should correct the language used to describe that scenario.
Ya, you need a Mox and a 1cc spell to do that... I should've chosen Looter il-Kor or something. I'll change that too. Thanks for pointing that out.
I absolutely don't take it the wrong way at all! I appreciate the feedback. Thanks again.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
The main things it made me think about:
1. Number of Lands
In your own cube list you are try to push fixing lands above 10%. This is a fine way to handle it but I found my group started to get grumpy at about the 10% mark, and seeing packs with 4+ fixing in it is not something they liked. Part of this was how they evaluated cards vs. your group and another was outllook. My groups sees cube as super-drafting not randomized constructed. In all other draft environments we have played (including dragonmaze) there was an upper limit on fixing. And at that level and in my cube we still see the cut land strategies that take all fixing and crazy powerful 5 color stuff.
I also think that having a huge amount of fixing decreases the power level of green. On the flip side cubes without fixing make green the best color. This is one way I am going to calibrate my land inclusion.
2. Drafting and Building
For cube we can get 45 playables every time often with 30+ being colorless or in our 2 colors. Compared to a normal limited environments, we have many picks to spare allowing us to take XX1 or XX2 cards in both colors and figuring out at that end what works. This finial decision process is what wins games in a fast high-level setting. Your article will have a big impact on me here.
3. Type of Lands
I think that some lands will be raised in my estimation. You pointed out how challenging the splash can be while maintaining a decent 2 color manabase. So lands that can splash in more directions are increased in value. The fetches of course, but there are others that are regularly dismissed by the group at large. The mirage fetches, terramorphic expanse, and evolving wilds can play a big roll getting that double mana or the splash on turns 2-4. The vivid lands can do this as well. Unfortunately this leaves only the pain lands as a place to look for untapped lands. Another often disregarded land type is the triple lands. While not helping with the double cost they are a great option for those that want to support larger gold sections. Ancient Ziggarat is a bone I might throw my aggro decks to compensate for the lack of great fixing for aggro decks. Cavern of Souls is also one i have my eye on. With the rise of human tribal in my cube those cards seem like they might have a home. Reflecting pool also goes up in my estimation.
As a side note I think Gemstone mine is creeping closer to a pick 1 in my mind. I also want to hear if people have tried Archeological Dig, Tengo Ice Bridge, Mirrodin's Core, or Lotus Vale.
4. Gold Section
The reaction I see most many managers have is to go after gold cards. The most important thing is to make your group happy. Many groups like the author's just want their decks to run smooth as silk with tons of flexibility. Golds cards really aren't for them. There are more than enough mono colored powerful cards to completely remove this section. Other groups love the power level and evocative nature of the gold cards. Many of them are egendary, or planeswalkers, one-of-a-kind effects and seem irreplaceable. I fall in the middle. The point of the author is something that has caused my to halve my gold section. But this article actually made me not want to cut anymore. Why? It looks like XX2 and YY2 cards are very hard on a deck evenly split in two colors. Comparatively XY2 is going to be very easy in that same deck. I may not want Koth and Thrun in the same deck, but I want Huntmaster in, no matter if I am R/G, R/g, or r/G. As others have said the math would be interesting to see in detail but I think it would hold throughout the curve. Interestingly wizards also views XY2 as more difficult than XX2 or X3 and is more comfortable increasing the power level. So while a certain gold card only goes in 10% of decks this article tells us we should not assume that all colored cards go in 20% of decks. More likely double cost cards should only be going in X/y decks which is 10%ish.
5. Hybrids
I have started sliding these in my main colors which is very controversial, but I like to cheat a little on my gold section. What is interesting from this article is that something like Boros Reckoner is probably better for my boros deck(mana wise) than RR1 or WW1 cards because I will always be dropping it turn 3 (not assuming colorless lands). I have been and will continue to be on the lookout for more hybrids and ways to get them in cube.
6. Other Fixers
The analysis assumes just the lands for fixing with half a point credited to signets and such. I think there is a lot more too it than that and for me will be the biggest way this article impacts my cube. Each color has ways of dealing with this that need to be managed in addition to number of fixing lands in the cube.
Green: The most obvious. Card like birds of paradise are staples but there is a significant resistance to Sylvan Caryatid which I think should be a 360 staple. And for those 540 and above Utopia Tree an the like should be looked at. The Cultivate cards are obviously strong in this area. Mana elves allow GG1 and GG2 cards to be much easier than cards in other colors. I have had great success with Avacyn's Pilgrim and Noble Hieracrh and will be trying to find room for Elves of Deep Shadow and Deathrite Shaman. The enemy pairs are notoriously weak for lands and I actively encourage people to try Elves of Deep shadow instead of a subpar G/B land.
Blue: Card drawing and filtering. Why am I playing the Clique with double mana cards of other colors? I look at a heck of a lot more cards than the generic table above. Having recently acquired some new high power cards I have trimmed back on cantrips. Also I have added cards to go with Master of Waves. This article reminded me that I was being greedy and need to correct this.
Black: Black gets the occasional ritual or swamp fetcher but it mostly needs card drawing to pull into more fixing. With the heaviest color requirements I will continue to try to find ways to reward heavy black decks for thier dedication. I will also take a second look at unusal fixing like Crypt Ghast. Where black really shines is tutors, although not sexy, how many of us Demonic Tutor for a dual on turn 2 or 3 to fix the rest of our plays?
Red: Ut-Oh. The fastest, most aggro color in cube really doesn't have anything that can help it. I really wish wizards would print some better looters. But I think I just need to be upping the mountains in my deck. What I want is a a R1 2/2 haste looter once when it comes into play.
White: Not much better than red but it gets Land Tax like cards on occasion. The biggest advantage white has is the depth in it's aggro choices, allowing for the removal of WW cards.
7. Mono-Colored Decks
I really like drafting mono decks for the exact reason the author is here. I get to play all my cards! Now they are less sexy and very hard with a smaller table of drafters, I think putting rewards in for players who go that way is a good idea. Not only have they made a risky choice, but the data aboves says it could be a smart move many times. Additionally it has a side benefit of leaving more fixing in the pool for others. Not sure exactly what I mean by rewards, but I am already running Thassa and Porphorous. Other options like Crypt Ghast and Nythos, Shrine to Nix would excite my group.
8. Land Destruction
It strikes me that if fixing is so tenuous for players than disrupting that is something I want to be doing. In a general sense this makes me want to include a couple cards I removed because I didn't think the 'Land Destruction.dec' was coming together. Also Fulminator Mage is now one of my highest priority acquisition targets. And as we see increased fixing is important does it make other cards better(Blood Moon, Molten Rain, Spreading Seas, Kiora's Follower, Tutors).
9. XX and Aggro
The author posited that the forum is dismissive of fixing concerns but in the last year (I am new here) there has been a big house cleaning on XX cards, particularly in white. By removing those cards it has certainly helped aggro. Another thing besides cutting is making sure that I have enough redundancy. That way I can have opening hands with W,R,W1,R1,RR so that I can drop threats uninterrupted . Dropping the Ash Zelot on turn 3 or 4 is not ideal in the abstract but isn't a big deal if I have another quality 2 drop which came down in its place.
10. Cuts
The author is going after gold, and that is certainly fine for his group I am going to look at my XX cards again but more importantly my XX1 and XX2. These cards really need to be better than X2 and X3 cards. They also need to be cards that are designed to be in the primary color combination than in the secondary or splash. Changes will probably be subtle but I need to realize that many/most of the time these cards will not come down on curve. I also need to reexamine the purpose of heavy requirement cards. Geralf's Messenger stays for me as my group likes it as more of a combo/reach card, cheating it, reanimating and all forms of goofy. But for groups that are on black aggro, you better see a lot of Mono-B otherwise it is gone. Cards with a back up plans are great. My hearld of torment didn't come down on 3, but I get a second black at turn 5, no problem.
11. Colorless cards and Phrexian Mana
I just don't have the room for colorless lands that are not amazing. This math reinforces something I have felt for a while. If someone told me they didn't put the colorless manlands in their 360 I would understand. Scary right? These cards are either taking up spell slots or you have specific decks that can handle the colorless mana. For me they are frequently a good 18th land but I see many people playing 8/8/Mutavault decks and cringe.
Dear wizards, make more aggro artifact creatures. The flip side of the above argument is the increased value of cards that don't care what lands you have. Porcelain Legionnaire and Phyrexian Metamorph are great in aggro decks because they really fill holes well. I will be doing another sweep of unassuming completetly functional cheaper artifact creatures to include. Epocrocite is a card I can't recommend enough.
In conclusion (if you have read this far). The math is an important thing to keep in mind as a cube designer and player. The demands from the author's group bring it into high clarity but it all reinforces that fundamental cube concepts "What kind of experiences do you want players to have?" and "What challenges should they face?"
You're most welcome. It was designed to be informative for everybody (myself included!) and not a lecture-style article. I enjoy reading articles written that way, so I tried to write my article that way.
Keep in mind that my solution looked that way largely because I'm trying to mitigate issues I have with the 2-4 man formats, and not for full-table drafting. For groups that fill up their tables and draft the majority of the cube in each sitting, the drafting and deck-building help (as well as having a basic understanding of the statistical requirements) will be much better uses of the information. Cube design probably won't be impacted at all.
Glad to hear it! I think the focus on the article lies more with this (understanding mana demand vs changing cube design to cater to it) than anything else.
5-color fixing is incredibly valuable stuff. I hope we get more in the future that are valuable to every decktype. I really wanted a poison-land from Scars block. And yes, Gemstone Mine is really good, IMHO.
Again, I think taking the "average draft" into account has more to do with this issue than mana demand does. When you play with a full table of 8, having gold cards and off-color guild fixing table is no big deal at all. Everyone will still have enough fixers and enough on-color playables to sculpt a competitive deck. But the smaller the draft event gets, the more that flexibility shows its value. Cutting a gold card for a mono-colored card increases the overall playability of the card by about four times what it was before. When you're playing Winston, Sealed and 4-Man Drafts ...that can have a tremendous impact.
Agreed. But I like to "cheat" on gold the other way. I like to take opportunities to remove cards that see play in ~10% of the decks and replace it with a hybrid that can see play in ~70% instead. That does a much more efficient job of increasing playability than cutting mono-colored cards for hybrids does. And regardless of the cost, hybrid cards are still ideal in their respective guild decks because of how much easier it is to cast them there. Kitchen Finks, for example, needs 12 sources of green to have a ~75% chance of casting it on T3 in a Gruul deck (making it very hard to be included in the same deck as a Koth, for example), but will be able to be run out on T3 pretty much every time in a Selesnya deck, regardless of the color demand of your other spells.
There is a lot more too it than what's covered in this article. Just keep in mind that a lot of those cards won't be able to help your demand for the 1-3 turn range, so just be weary of that when becoming more "greedy" with your mana base.
White also has Eternal Dragon, which can really help secure the double-white for 3 and 4cc spells, as well as fixing your mana if you have dual lands. I'm usually willing to count it as a full source for cards with a CMC of 3 or higher too, because it's uncounterable and can't be destroyed. And if you want to push it even further, Weathered Wayfarer can be a really helpful cheap card in the same vein.
And red has Faithless Looting available to it, which can help get proper configurations of mana for turns 2-4.
We don't play a ton of mono-color decks, but we'll often play heavy color-committed decks and they yield the same results. Screw mana demand, I get to play all my cards!
If anything, this article should help illustrate why land destruction (even one in a game) can be devastating to the opponent ...and why it's so good for aggro. It seems like a lot of people are cutting these kinds of cards lately, but a Pillage can straight win a game against a player needing double-white for that Wrath of God. So can Avalance Riders–even if it just keep your opponent off their Gideon or Baneslayer.
Both redundancy and not overdoing XX 2-drops are good for mitigating mana demand. By dismissive of mana issues, I was more referring to the prioritization of mana fixing lands, the assumption of the "free splash" and the lack of impact colorless lands have. More of a drafting/deck-building concern than a lack of understanding from a design standpoint. Hope that clarifies.
Again, the article is designed more to raise awareness of mana demand in drafting and deck-building to help cube drafters dodge the "traps" that the cube can so subtly set up for them. It's not really written with the intention of having cube managers conduct a witch hunt and start purging gold cards and color-demanding cards.
Every last bit of this right here. Tapping exclusively for colorless mana is a significant drawback for a land to have. And colorless casting costs/options are amazing upsides. Well said. Additionally, I'll sign that petition for more colorless aggro cards as soon as you draft it up and get ready to send it to Wizards.
Exactly right. Mana demand isn't an impossible task to hurdle. It's simply something that players and cube managers need to be aware of so they can get the most fulfilling experiences from their cube drafts.
Thanks so much for posting.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Visual Spoiler
Draft!
Glad it was of some value to you and your group. Please report any results you have with potential changes in either cube design or draft habits, and let me know what works and what doesn't!
Thanks for commenting.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I think the issue will revolve more around me correctly identifying what they represent. I will offer my thanks to you ahead of time in regards to getting clearer identification on them.
Agreed. I think the article was designed more towards helping people understand mana source demand for drafting and deckbuilding, rather than design.
No, simply that once the deck has been built, and the matchup is going to be what it is, you having access to the mana to cast your spells has a tremendous impact on the outcome of the average game.
Agreed on both accounts. Obviously resource management needs to take into account the ability to cast the non-land sources in addition to your overall number of sources and your color breakdown.
And ya, those examples aren't perfect. Change it to a Carnophage and an Ash Zealot.
I did a poor job of explaining that chart. It's simply for identifying the chances of playing lands on the given turn. Not necessarily casting a specific card or curving from one CMC to the next. Picture the data applying to your chances of activating a Dust Bowl on T4 instead. No other cards need be considered. Just hitting your lands.
Correct. Your chances of curving into a 5-drop by just playing 5 lands turn after turn on T5 is hard enough as it is. The individual color charts simply represent how often you'll have 2 sources of green available by T5 if one of your cards is a double-green card. For example, it might tell me what my chances of being able to cast a Strangleroot Geist will be if I care about being able to cast that spell on T5. Not necessarily specifically casting a 5cc card on T5. Another thing that needs better clarification.
Correct. But if I have an Elspeth I'm trying to cast, cards like Eternal Dragon and Coldsteel Heart can help mitigate some of the source requirements for white. Not in direct competition with the lands in order to reach a total number of mana sources.
I know, but as I explained in the article, I wanted to include examples of the most demanding of the predictable situations you can find yourself in. As a safety net.
This is absolutely true, and was not forgotten. The chart lets me know how many sources of black I'd need to have BB by T3 assuming one of my cards was a BB card. Not accounting for the inability to secure 3 sources simultaneously. Exchange the Nighthawk for a Hymn to Tourach, and the numbers in the chart apply better.
They do, but in an off-hand way. Take the Hymn example above. Perhaps you're okay calculating the odds for Hymn based on casting it on T4. That's where the 10 sources indicated in the double-color chart apply. That accounts for the Hymn being one of your drawn cards, and taking the rest of the results out of 39 cards, with the 7 other cards you've seen by T2, and needing 2 sources.
So with the Hymn example, the chart would be used as follows:
1. Assume 1 drawn card is Hymn to Tourach.
2. Consult the chart to find out how many sources of black you'd need to include in order to have a ≥75% of having 2 sources of black by that given turn (on the play).
3. If you want it to be cast reliably by T2, look to include 13 sources. If you want to cast the drawn card by T4, you can lower the number to 10. Different spells will have different acceptable ranges at which you're comfortable casting them, based on a ton of different factors, as you alluded to above.
Thanks so much for the detailed feedback! We can work out through PM what clarification I should provide to better illustrate what the numbers represent.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
It does make me happy that I made the right choice with including the vivid lands. They really shored up my mana fixing since foil fetch lands are still too expensive for their inclusion -- c'mon reprint!
-- Geb --
Glad you found the article helpful!
And ya, foil fetches are certainly expensive.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
This article also makes me a little sick since I realize how lucky some opponents--and myself--have gotten with mana bases in the past. Sonnuvaguns "splashing" cryptic command grumble grumble...
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
There are a myriad of factors that influence your mana demand and this article only touches on a few.
Glad you found the information helpful!
I've also seen (and gotten away with myself) some really greedy splashing. Sometimes it works, and other times you're stuck with cards you can't cast.
..........
As an aside, I'm going to include some extra information in the article (I'll "box" the new content in) that will help to clarify what the numbers mean, and how they can be of use to you.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
Thanks! Let me know if the information is helpful to them, and what steps (if any) they used to increase consistency.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I opted to stick to a high conservative value and always assume I'm on the play. I wanted these numbers to assume the most demanding average situation, because there's a whole grip of factors that change them.
That will vary a lot from deck to deck, from factors including the deck theater and archetype all the way down to what the most important/powerful spell is in the deck.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
In other words, because you have a 2 card in your hand that you can play on T2, it doesn't change the fact that you'll want to include enough sources in your deck to also cast the BB card. The tables are about having options available to you, not running the minimum number of sources required to cast just any spell on-curve, but to cast your target spell on curve.
Example: If I determine that I want to play Sinkhole by T2 when I'm on the play, the value to do so ≥75% of the time is 13 sources. Other factors not included (mulligans, T1 card draw, disruption, T1 fetchlands, etc).
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!