All of these cards made the top-5 of wtwlf's set-by-set articles for Cube (correctly so - don't take this as a knock on wtwlf!). They've seen little to no Constructed play (to date) and speculating on them would have seen no or negative returns.
So I don't really think that this forum possesses any particular talent for card evaluation outside the context of Cube (which would be very weird if it did).
Falcone, I just wrote up the longest post I think I've ever written on these forums to respond to that...
And then my computer crashed.
Long story short, I've made tens of thousands of dollars on MTG spec buys. Knowing what cards are playable in a small or medium cube does give you an edge at being able to evaluate cards based on comp analysis, but you need to always remember that cards go up and down based on FORMAT DEMAND.
Most of those cards that you linked as false positives are not good enough for a 360 cube, and I would only consider Master of the Feast a good spec buy. Kalonian Hydra can be compared to cards similar (Vorapede, Wolfir Silverheart) and Imposing Sovereign can be compared to Thalia and a wide range of host of other aggressive 2/1s. The needs of cubes are different than the needs of other formats, and the other formats come first.
Guild cards are also an extremely special case because there are only ~3 spots in a 360 cube (for instance), so Deathrite Shaman isn't better than Pernicious Deed for the cube, but it doesn't take a genius to realize Deathrite Shaman is heads and tails better than anything similar to it (unlike Kalonian Hydra or Imposing Sovereign), and it's able to be demanded in modern and legacy.
Rabblemaster, Dig, and Courser are each in their own league of powerful effects that we have never seen before. Courser can be compared to Oracle, but being 3cmc and having a 4 butt is much better in Standard (the only constructed format this thing would be played, once it rotates out it's going to drop because modern/legacy has no need for this, obv). Dig and Rabblemaster are honestly just extremely unique and powerful and it's very difficult to say "Well, why not just play X card, which is better than Dig/Rabblemaster?" Dig has the added bonus of being able to be demanded in eternal formats. Master of the Feast is also in a league of its own, which is why I consider it a good spec buy unlike the other junk on there (most of which isn't even good enough for a small cube).
All prospective buys need to be 4x too, so that's an important factor. Pain Seer and Blood Scrivener aren't good enough for 360 lists, AND Dark Confidant just does what they do but better. Modern/Legacy/Vintage decks don't need 8 Dark Confidants, so they won't hit the 4x rule nearly ever, even if they are wanted/needed in some deck that wants more Dark Confidants.
Standard analysis is MUCH more difficult than legacy/modern and requires a pretty in-depth knowledge of decks, and many of the cards that "get big" will just be for Standard, and then they'll rotate out. When something is completely by itself in its own league and it can fit into an existing deck archetype (or common archetype) it's usually a good bet.
Master of the Feast can fit into monoblack, so it would fit all my criteria above (at least for Standard), and I may or may not have spec bought a bunch of Master of the Feasts. Everyone makes mistakes though, and if Master of the Feast never does anything, that's okay. If I bought 100 Master of the Feasts for $1 each and I sell them back for $.50, I lost 50 bucks. Oh well. However, if they go up to $20, I made a lot more than $50. You will generally have a lot more losers than winners when it comes to spec buys for standard, but if you do it correctly, your winners will make profits over 10x whatever your losses lost you. Also, foils are important. Remember when foil Delver of Secrets were 50 cents? I do.
So yeah, really hate that my computer crashed and I didn't have this wonderfully long detailed post, but I guess that's the jist of it.
TL;DR:
Fool: "Wow, this card is playable in a 360 cube! Imma buy 1,000!"
Sage: "Did you even think of what formats this card could be good in BESIDE cube?"
EDIT:
Colby's Spec Buy Loose Criteria: (not all criteria needs to be met, but the more points it hits the more likely it is to be a huge moneymaker)
1) Is it the best thing at what it does? (i.e. 360 cubeable, but not to fill in a roleplaying slot like Firedrinker Satyr which is just worse than Goblin Guide, or just a worse version of an already existing card i.e. Pain Seer vs. Dark Confidant)
2) Does modern/legacy want it?
3) Is it a card that's a 4x?
4) Does a standard deck want it?
-------
bonus) Can it create a new deck or is it a key piece of a new deck? (i.e. Jeskai Ascendancy/Glittering Wish, Splinter Twin)
Colby, you're reading way too much in my post (and I shudder to think what your *even longer* post must have been like :gaping:).
I was merely reacting to several posters who where basically saying that to know what cards are going to be good/expensive, one just needs to look at a card's value in Cube (as perceived by this forum). And that's demonstrably not true.
Funnily enough, you actually agree with me, since you acknowledge that some cards are good in Cube but not in Constructed, and vice versa.
I agree that this community is good at evaluating cards. But I think the non-cube community is better than is apparent; many of them are playing in constructed tournaments where the hottest tech is important to keep under wraps for whatever the next big tournament is.
Basically, the best of the cube community have incentive to make their thoughts / testing known immediately - so the other cubers can give input and together they can come to a conclusion. But the best of the competitve constructed community has incentive to do the opposite.
Also one other thing that I think is easy to overlook in this discussion: card evaluations for Cube are never *really* tested and proven, at least not to the extent that card evaluations for Constructed are.
What I mean is this: I can theory-craft that card A is "good in Cube", include it in my list and play a couple of no-stakes, casual 8-man drafts with it, and report back with at best anecdotal evidence about its usefulness. For Constructed purposes, players can test cards, decks and matchups for hundreds of games, and then their conclusions are tested in tournaments with substantial money at stake. Which method do you think will yield the best results if you want to determine a card's true value in the respective formats?
That's not to mention the fact that there's not really one Cube format like there is one "Khans Standard" format, because all Cubes are different.
Of course, the beautiful thing is that we don't *need* exact card evaluations in a Cube context, since our goal is (usually) no more than to create an enjoyable custom draft environment, not maximize our chances of winning money in a Constructed tournament.
Agreed with the above posts in that just because a card is good in 360 cube doesn't mean it's worth playing. I've had my fair share of swings and misses lately (I fully expected Hammer of Purphoros/Xenagod to be the second coming of Fires), and even some of the hits are only powerful when taken in the context of cube.
There are definitely some lessons in how good this forum has been at card evaluation though:
1. As important as keeping the format in mind is, it's important not to let it blind you. If a card is independently powerful enough, it is capable of defining a format all on its own, just like Dig Through Time, Goblin Rabblemaster, and Hornet Queen (kudos to wtwlf for catching that one when it was in Commander) have done so far in standard.
2. Keep historical precedent in mind, but understand that some slots are more competitive than others. It's far more impressive that DTT can compete against blue draw spells than it is that Bloodsoaked Champion can compete against black 1-drops.
3. Remember, testing and collaboration conquers all. If you want to get ahead of the curve and make some good speculative buys, proxy those suckers up yourself and listen to everyone's feedback. One person's card evaluation technique will never be as honed as a dedicated group.
One card from KTK that I believe is woefully absent from this list is Seeker of the Way and Monastery Swiftspear. This card replaced Knight of the Meadowgrain in my cube for many reasons, most importantly of which is the 1W over WW. The spells matters deck has recently been pushed from UR to URw, and for good reason. There are plenty of awesome white spells you want in that deck, like Elspeth, Knight Errant, Wrath of God, and awesome removal.
I like Knight of Meadowgrain more than Seeker of the Way. The double white is a bit of a bummer, but the first strike makes up for it. Seeker feels like it would take jumping through hoops to turn his abilities on, while Knight is just solid all the time. Monastery Swiftspear could probably go either/or with something like Reckless Waif as far as damage output goes. Again, it takes some work to get the extra bonus. The mono red deck wants to play creatures and turn them sideways. I see her coming down on turn one, hitting for one that turn and probably the next turn and then maybe hitting for two the turn after. I just wasn't impressed with Prowess as an ability in general.
Seeker was okay in testing, but it spent too much time as a generic 2/2, including a bunch of times where the abilities were critical and unavailable. In a cube bursting with combat tricks, it would be right at home. But in my list, I found it woefully lacking.
All of these cards made the top-5 of wtwlf's set-by-set articles for Cube (correctly so - don't take this as a knock on wtwlf!). They've seen little to no Constructed play (to date) and speculating on them would have seen no or negative returns.
There's a ton of false negatives as well (Sphinx's Revelation, Deathrite Shaman).
So I don't really think that this forum possesses any particular talent for card evaluation outside the context of Cube (which would be very weird if it did).
A Comprehensive list of Cube Archetypes
And then my computer crashed.
Long story short, I've made tens of thousands of dollars on MTG spec buys. Knowing what cards are playable in a small or medium cube does give you an edge at being able to evaluate cards based on comp analysis, but you need to always remember that cards go up and down based on FORMAT DEMAND.
Most of those cards that you linked as false positives are not good enough for a 360 cube, and I would only consider Master of the Feast a good spec buy. Kalonian Hydra can be compared to cards similar (Vorapede, Wolfir Silverheart) and Imposing Sovereign can be compared to Thalia and a wide range of host of other aggressive 2/1s. The needs of cubes are different than the needs of other formats, and the other formats come first.
Guild cards are also an extremely special case because there are only ~3 spots in a 360 cube (for instance), so Deathrite Shaman isn't better than Pernicious Deed for the cube, but it doesn't take a genius to realize Deathrite Shaman is heads and tails better than anything similar to it (unlike Kalonian Hydra or Imposing Sovereign), and it's able to be demanded in modern and legacy.
Rabblemaster, Dig, and Courser are each in their own league of powerful effects that we have never seen before. Courser can be compared to Oracle, but being 3cmc and having a 4 butt is much better in Standard (the only constructed format this thing would be played, once it rotates out it's going to drop because modern/legacy has no need for this, obv). Dig and Rabblemaster are honestly just extremely unique and powerful and it's very difficult to say "Well, why not just play X card, which is better than Dig/Rabblemaster?" Dig has the added bonus of being able to be demanded in eternal formats. Master of the Feast is also in a league of its own, which is why I consider it a good spec buy unlike the other junk on there (most of which isn't even good enough for a small cube).
All prospective buys need to be 4x too, so that's an important factor. Pain Seer and Blood Scrivener aren't good enough for 360 lists, AND Dark Confidant just does what they do but better. Modern/Legacy/Vintage decks don't need 8 Dark Confidants, so they won't hit the 4x rule nearly ever, even if they are wanted/needed in some deck that wants more Dark Confidants.
Standard analysis is MUCH more difficult than legacy/modern and requires a pretty in-depth knowledge of decks, and many of the cards that "get big" will just be for Standard, and then they'll rotate out. When something is completely by itself in its own league and it can fit into an existing deck archetype (or common archetype) it's usually a good bet.
Master of the Feast can fit into monoblack, so it would fit all my criteria above (at least for Standard), and I may or may not have spec bought a bunch of Master of the Feasts. Everyone makes mistakes though, and if Master of the Feast never does anything, that's okay. If I bought 100 Master of the Feasts for $1 each and I sell them back for $.50, I lost 50 bucks. Oh well. However, if they go up to $20, I made a lot more than $50. You will generally have a lot more losers than winners when it comes to spec buys for standard, but if you do it correctly, your winners will make profits over 10x whatever your losses lost you. Also, foils are important. Remember when foil Delver of Secrets were 50 cents? I do.
So yeah, really hate that my computer crashed and I didn't have this wonderfully long detailed post, but I guess that's the jist of it.
TL;DR:
Fool: "Wow, this card is playable in a 360 cube! Imma buy 1,000!"
Sage: "Did you even think of what formats this card could be good in BESIDE cube?"
EDIT:
Colby's Spec Buy Loose Criteria: (not all criteria needs to be met, but the more points it hits the more likely it is to be a huge moneymaker)
1) Is it the best thing at what it does? (i.e. 360 cubeable, but not to fill in a roleplaying slot like Firedrinker Satyr which is just worse than Goblin Guide, or just a worse version of an already existing card i.e. Pain Seer vs. Dark Confidant)
2) Does modern/legacy want it?
3) Is it a card that's a 4x?
4) Does a standard deck want it?
-------
bonus) Can it create a new deck or is it a key piece of a new deck? (i.e. Jeskai Ascendancy/Glittering Wish, Splinter Twin)
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
I was merely reacting to several posters who where basically saying that to know what cards are going to be good/expensive, one just needs to look at a card's value in Cube (as perceived by this forum). And that's demonstrably not true.
Funnily enough, you actually agree with me, since you acknowledge that some cards are good in Cube but not in Constructed, and vice versa.
A Comprehensive list of Cube Archetypes
I have a lot of experience with the topic at hand, which is why the post is long, and the really big post was massive.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
Basically, the best of the cube community have incentive to make their thoughts / testing known immediately - so the other cubers can give input and together they can come to a conclusion. But the best of the competitve constructed community has incentive to do the opposite.
What I mean is this: I can theory-craft that card A is "good in Cube", include it in my list and play a couple of no-stakes, casual 8-man drafts with it, and report back with at best anecdotal evidence about its usefulness. For Constructed purposes, players can test cards, decks and matchups for hundreds of games, and then their conclusions are tested in tournaments with substantial money at stake. Which method do you think will yield the best results if you want to determine a card's true value in the respective formats?
That's not to mention the fact that there's not really one Cube format like there is one "Khans Standard" format, because all Cubes are different.
Of course, the beautiful thing is that we don't *need* exact card evaluations in a Cube context, since our goal is (usually) no more than to create an enjoyable custom draft environment, not maximize our chances of winning money in a Constructed tournament.
A Comprehensive list of Cube Archetypes
There are definitely some lessons in how good this forum has been at card evaluation though:
1. As important as keeping the format in mind is, it's important not to let it blind you. If a card is independently powerful enough, it is capable of defining a format all on its own, just like Dig Through Time, Goblin Rabblemaster, and Hornet Queen (kudos to wtwlf for catching that one when it was in Commander) have done so far in standard.
2. Keep historical precedent in mind, but understand that some slots are more competitive than others. It's far more impressive that DTT can compete against blue draw spells than it is that Bloodsoaked Champion can compete against black 1-drops.
3. Remember, testing and collaboration conquers all. If you want to get ahead of the curve and make some good speculative buys, proxy those suckers up yourself and listen to everyone's feedback. One person's card evaluation technique will never be as honed as a dedicated group.
Cubetutor Link
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
Swiftspear is on the list.
Seeker was okay in testing, but it spent too much time as a generic 2/2, including a bunch of times where the abilities were critical and unavailable. In a cube bursting with combat tricks, it would be right at home. But in my list, I found it woefully lacking.
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!