No. I'm saying that the card needs to be evaluated as a really heavy blue one, because if you try to evaluate it exclusively in the windows you were describing it being good in (power, non-blue spells, etc) it becomes too narrow. So I either need it to be good enough at 1UUU, or deal with the fact that it'll rarely make my final 40s. Because of that, I don't think the card is great for cubes, despite its high ceiling.
Oh ok, that makes sense. Yea I guess setting the absolute baseline to share color makes sense as although it may not be what you almost ever use in real gameplay, it's important that you always have the option to safely Mana Leak or the like, even if you don't think it's necessary in the moment.
1. If you have the ability to cast Cryptic Command in your cube on turn 4 or 5 with relative consistently, then this card likely belongs in your cube too based on power level alone.
2. Counterspells often become scarce after players get the hang of drafting your cube because the drafters with any experience whatsoever quickly recognize their immense value in virtually all variants of blue decks (besides U/R/x Wildfire), so this card will likely serve a functionally valuable role as a pseudo-counterspell for blue drafters that didn't get passed enough countermagic while drafting to protect themselves against combo and other "swingy" decks.
3. The combined power and crazy stories that Mission Briefing can create when combined with Spellseeker in a powered cube should be more than enough incentive for cube managers who play the latter to include the prior.
As an overly analytical person who has a strong drive to exhaust my reasoning, my advice is to curate these posts to focus on the points you find most essential.... mostly because people don't read it otherwise.. I know this from a lot of experience with my own wall of text posts and the feedback they get
Haha it's all good I don't mind not getting feedback on long posts. I came home high as **** last night and apparently I wrote like 4 enormous posts that could have easily been summarized in 5 or 6 sentences each, but to be honest I don't even remember half of what I wrote so it doesn't bother me.
On a more serious note, my first bullet point was simply regarding that Cryptic is good if you can cast it, and this card is likely the same. I guess it's possible that it's could be consistently harder to cast then a Cryptic, but I'd honestly doubt that it's that big of a deal most of the time and I'm honestly willing to back up calibretto on this one.
Don't agree with this, blue draw spells generate quite a bit of value. An end of turn 6 mana surveil 2 then fact or fiction is a pretty incredible value option, one I would be happy to take if I had room to cast it.
The power differential of spells between the colors is not nearly enough IMO to make what you are saying true, given the obvious mana base incentive to play many more blue spells than a complimentary color.
I can't really argue against this point because the basis for my statement was for my cube and those similar to it in size and design, and if your cube happens to play expensive card draw spells I suppose that increases this card's stock for a cube like yours substantially.
Correct. I may include the card because I want to Brief my Bolt, but being able to reliably use it to re-Leak something will be an important part of its evaluation.
No. I'm saying that the card needs to be evaluated as a really heavy blue one, because if you try to evaluate it exclusively in the windows you were describing it being good in (power, non-blue spells, etc) it becomes too narrow. So I either need it to be good enough at 1UUU, or deal with the fact that it'll rarely make my final 40s. Because of that, I don't think the card is great for cubes, despite its high ceiling.
Oh ok, that makes sense. Yea I guess setting the absolute baseline to share color makes sense as although it may not be what you almost ever use in real gameplay, it's important that you always have the option to safely Mana Leak or the like, even if you don't think it's necessary in the moment.
1. If you have the ability to cast Cryptic Command in your cube on turn 4 or 5 with relative consistently, then this card likely belongs in your cube too based on power level alone.
2. Counterspells often become scarce after players get the hang of drafting your cube because the drafters with any experience whatsoever quickly recognize their immense value in virtually all variants of blue decks (besides U/R/x Wildfire), so this card will likely serve a functionally valuable role as a pseudo-counterspell for blue drafters that didn't get passed enough countermagic while drafting to protect themselves against combo and other "swingy" decks.
3. The combined power and crazy stories that Mission Briefing can create when combined with Spellseeker in a powered cube should be more than enough incentive for cube managers who play the latter to include the prior.
As an overly analytical person who has a strong drive to exhaust my reasoning, my advice is to curate these posts to focus on the points you find most essential.... mostly because people don't read it otherwise.. I know this from a lot of experience with my own wall of text posts and the feedback they get
Haha it's all good I don't mind not getting feedback on long posts. I came home high as **** last night and apparently I wrote like 4 enormous posts that could have easily been summarized in 5 or 6 sentences each, but to be honest I don't even remember half of what I wrote so it doesn't bother me.
On a more serious note, my first bullet point was simply regarding that Cryptic is good if you can cast it, and this card is likely the same. I guess it's possible that it's could be consistently harder to cast then a Cryptic, but I'd honestly doubt that it's that big of a deal most of the time and I'm honestly willing to back up calibretto on this one.
Don't agree with this, blue draw spells generate quite a bit of value. An end of turn 6 mana surveil 2 then fact or fiction is a pretty incredible value option, one I would be happy to take if I had room to cast it.
The power differential of spells between the colors is not nearly enough IMO to make what you are saying true, given the obvious mana base incentive to play many more blue spells than a complimentary color.
I can't really argue against this point because the basis for my statement was for my cube and those similar to it in size and design, and if your cube happens to play expensive card draw spells I suppose that increases this card's stock for a cube like yours substantially.
Ahhh wow, just checked over your list, you play way less draw spells than I do.. No Dig through time or treasure cruise likely makes the surveil 2 worse as well....
and I can relate to the other thing, adderall has been at the root of most of my tl;dr essays lol.
As much as I love Dig in a variety of formats, it just always feels super slow and only ever gets cast on like turns 6 or 7, which just isn’t useful in most matchups. It’s only purpose is to generate value against other control decks, as blue control already slaughters midrange without Dig and you don’t usually need the card draw vs combo and aggro. It’s great at larger sizes, but once you cross below the 450 range I don’t think Dig is especially good, and I’ve honestly never likeed Cruise at all in cube as it’s just too slow unless it’s being cast for 2 or 3 mana, which is pretty rare.
I used to constantly use Vyvanse recreationally, and I had a whole system down for how to fall asleep when I clearly wasn’t in the mood. I’ve had many a sleepless nights from adderrall, and it always makes me completely lose my scope of time passing.
Colored mana demand is so dramatically misunderstood and undervalued by the majority of the cube community.
I can't disagree more. I think you drastically overvalue what the difference between 1C and CC really is in terms of how cards actually play. There are so many factors to consider when evaluating a card's casting cost and mana requirements. Obviously 1C is preferred to CC for the same (or better) effect, but CC isn't that taxing in the average two color deck, especially when that spell is not necessarily a turn two spell.
Colored mana demand is so dramatically misunderstood and undervalued by the majority of the cube community.
I can't disagree more. I think you drastically overvalue what the difference between 1C and CC really is in terms of how cards actually play. There are so many factors to consider when evaluating a card's casting cost and mana requirements. Obviously 1C is preferred to CC for the same (or better) effect, but CC isn't that taxing in the average two color deck, especially when that spell is not necessarily a turn two spell.
I heavily disagree. A 2-cmc CC spell really has to be worth it for me to even consider running it. A lot of 3 drops are 1CC, and it can be really problematic if your 2-drops / 3-drops are like UU / 1WW / 1BW / etc.
I think you drastically overvalue what the difference between 1C and CC really is in terms of how cards actually play.
It's actually just statistics and probability. It takes roughly twice as many sources of blue to use a UU spell on T4 than it does to use a 1U spell on T4. It's the difference between needing 10 sources of blue to effectively cast the spell reliably and only needing 5. If that doesn't seem significant to you, I think you're undervaluing the importance of mana demand.
I think you drastically overvalue what the difference between 1C and CC really is in terms of how cards actually play.
It's actually just statistics and probability. It takes roughly twice as many sources of blue to use a UU spell on T4 than it does to use a 1U spell on T4. It's the difference between needing 10 sources of blue to effectively cast the spell reliably and only needing 5. If that doesn't seem significant to you, I think you're undervaluing the importance of mana demand.
Is t4 snappy the most common use though? It's generally not for us, although it's certainly important to have the option. And in your evaluation, it's not 1 source vs 2 sources, it's actually 3 sources vs 4 sources to flashback counterspell, and 3 sources vs 2 sources to flashback leak. And by this evaluation, cryptic should be a garbage card because to have 3 U sources on turn 4 you need 15 U sources - yet I don't see people pushing for cutting cryptic. Plus these issues are mitigated by being in various decks - any U deck can have card draw, UG gets extra sources from creatures and ramp spells, white can have land tax, etc.
I think given the number of times this is a late game play, plus the number of times this will be flashing back a red, black, or white removal spell, it won't be as backbreaking that it's UU as a card you need to play on turn 2 or 3 is, since the chances of wanting to use it to flashback a blue spell on turn 3 are pretty slim.
Maybe it will be the case that I find this always stuck in my hand because I'm short exactly one blue mana. I think the much more likely scenario if the card isn't good enough is that it turns out surveil 2 isn't worth not leaving a body behind.
While a bit offtopic: I would really suggest anyone who is unsure about how much difference there is between CC vs 1C, or similar affairs to read this excellent article by Frank Karsten.
While you will almost never build "sufficient" mana bases in cube, it does give a nice understanding how many sources you need. The article also contains nice tables for reference.
Is t4 snappy the most common use though? It's generally not for us, although it's certainly important to have the option.
It's critical to have the option available, and it's far easier to do with a 1U spell than a UU one. And yes, Snappy IS commonly used to flashback 2cc spells on T4. I would need this card to be reliably capable of making the same plays, otherwise I'd rather be using a different spell that will be less narrow in the windows where it's useful to me.
Quote from asmallcat »
cryptic should be a garbage card
I already addressed this. I'm willing to have Cryptic be narrow because it's completely broken. This card isn't, so a commonly needed 1UUU cost for this card isn't as justifiable.
Quote from asmallcat »
it turns out surveil 2 isn't worth not leaving a body behind.
We already know this. This isn't about Briefing vs Snapcaster, because that's a no-brainer. It's about 1U vs UU, which is currently being undervalued by too many folks.
..........
The bottom line is that this card would be a very easy include for me if it cost 1U, because it opens up so many additional plays for decks that won't be able to use it because it costs UU instead. It makes a tremendous difference. Night and day different, actually. As I already specified, the amount of blue mana sources needed to effectively use this card damn-near doubles in any window in which you're casting it compared to what the colored mana demand would look like if it had a better mana cost.
I heavily disagree. A 2-cmc CC spell really has to be worth it for me to even consider running it. A lot of 3 drops are 1CC, and it can be really problematic if your 2-drops / 3-drops are like UU / 1WW / 1BW / etc.
While I agree that cost is certainly a factor in card evaluation and a card needs to be good enough to warrant that CC cost, I don't think a CC cost should be the sole reason it doesn't make the cut. A slam dunk at 1U should is not just fringe playable at UU, imo. It's certainly somewhat worse because of that, but that doesn't suddenly make it unplayable.
In that example, assume you're playing a UW deck splashing Vindicate or something. If we assume that you've taken those mana requirements into account when drafting/building, then we have to assume that you've put a mana base together that will work with those requirements in most cases. Most likely you don't need UU on turn two for that Counterspell (or Mission Briefing to keep it on point here), so it's ok to just play a second color. Your deck probably has other 1U and 1W cards it can play anyway. And if the splash is Vindicate, you probably don't have to have a black source on three. Games of Magic all play out differently. I'm not trying to down play the requirements of putting all those cards in the same deck, you do have to take that into account when putting the mana base together, but I think that if you've put together something reasonable for your mana base then your deck will probably play out just fine. It's not going to be game after game of color screw because you could only fit eight blue sources in the deck instead of ten.
It's actually just statistics and probability. It takes roughly twice as many sources of blue to use a UU spell on T4 than it does to use a 1U spell on T4. It's the difference between needing 10 sources of blue to effectively cast the spell reliably and only needing 5. If that doesn't seem significant to you, I think you're undervaluing the importance of mana demand.
Right. I get the math and the statistics. My point is that even if the stats say I need ten blue sources to reliably cast a UU spell on turn four, how often will that actually come up in game play if I only run eight sources for my one UU card? How often will I be sitting on Counterspell on turn four with only one blue source in play? How often will you not have the two blue, but also not have the Counterspell? The inherent variance of Magic needs to play some part in the evaluation of these cards, not just the math and the statistics. Obviously there will be some amount of times where you lose because of mana troubles, but that would be true even if you had perfect mana based on the percentages and statistics.
And again, I'm not discounting double color costs as being meaningless to your mana requirements. There's an obvious cost to including cards like that in your deck, but it's not a cost that's impossible to pay. And in most games of Magic, it probably won't even come up assuming you're not trying to splash a UU card off three Islands.
I think the 2nd quote is from calibretto, not steve_man.
Quote from calibretto »
A slam dunk at 1U [...] is not just fringe playable at UU...
Yes, it 100% is. There are hundreds of Magic cards that would go from not good enough to immediate cube contenders with a change from a CC cost to a 1C cost. Or a 1CC to 2C cost, or 2CC to 3C cost, for that matter.
If we can't even agree on this basic principle, we need to agree to disagree and move on.
Quote from calibretto »
The inherent variance of Magic needs to play some part in the evaluation of these cards...
It does! It's the most important part. Mana is already fickle, and you have to deal with all kinds of inconsistencies across the board between mana demand, total mana source requirements, mulligans, disruption... Why on Earth would I want to compound all those inconsistencies by setting myself up for failure from the beginning?
Quote from calibretto »
...if the stats say I need ten blue sources to reliably cast a UU spell on turn four, how often will that actually come up in game play if I only run eight sources...
You go from a ~75% chance of having the mana you need to ~60%. So ~15% of the time? That is statistically significant to me, and it shows in practice as well as in theory with regularity.
..........
And this is assuming I'm playing Briefing on T4 at the earliest. You know how often Snappy gets used on T3 to flash back cantrips, bolts, durresses and the like? I go from needing ~6 sources of blue to have a 75% chance of flashing back a Lightning Bolt or Thoughtseize on T3 with Snapcaster to needing ~12 sources with Briefing. If you don't think that's significant, I don't know what else I can say.
I think the bottom line, at least for me, is that;
1. This card is not powerful enough to justify needing reliable access to triple blue.
2. This card becomes too weak of a cube card if I can't reliably target most of the spells that I play in my deck.
I think these are fair arguments against it in terms of the mana cost. I still think it deserves a test, though, to see just how often the heavy blue requirement is detrimental. The effect is powerful, so I think that alone means this warrants a test in medium to larger lists.
You go from a ~75% chance of having the mana you need to ~60%. So ~15% of the time? That is statistically significant to me, and it shows in practice as well as in theory with regularity.
I think this is where we have to chalk what shows in practice up to different experiences and move on. Like I said before, I'm not advocating trying to splash Cryptic Command off three blue sources. I try to use the math and statistics to build what I feel are educated mana bases and exclude CC cards when I can't justify them in my deck. But I don't personally see a 15% statistic as super relevant in terms of how the games actually play out. Occasionally I'll get color screwed and it'll cost me the game because I needed to counter that finisher on turn five. Occasionally I'll get color screwed and it won't matter because I didn't even see Counterspell. Most of the time, though, it'll play out just fine. I guess I just feel like it's not that serious.
That's fine. If you don't feel like a change between 60% and 75% is significant, that's the end of meaningful debate. As far as that's concerned.
However, the 60% to 75% debate has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. We're not talking about a 2 source difference in this case. We're talking about doubling the number of required sources to maintain the same effectiveness. I can't imagine a world where that's not significant.
But, you don't feel like it matters. I do. We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.
For example, at a total of 1UUU mana this card better be cryptic command or better, however it is not. Too many blue spells with UU in their cost to be reused in cube. The UU cost of this card is a serious weakness and that alone is the reason why I don't think it is 540 and less cubable. That extra colored cost is very real and plenty of cards don't make the cut for that reason alone at at 2 and 3 cmc (or similar triple mono-colored cost at 4-5 cmc).
Paying 2WWUU for a Wrath of God is acceptable.
1UUU for Mana leak is not. I'd rather play Condescend for 3U and suffer the lack of a GY filler, in exchange for never accidentally drawing a blank while my graveyard has no desirable targets.
1UUUUU for a Cryptic Command is not. I don't even think I can cast that, ever.
4RRUU for a Wildfire might work, by why would this even be in my deck? I'm pretty sure I want mana rocks and flametongue kavu, neither of which work with this card.
Do I want an extra Reanimate? Sure as hell can't use it on my Animate Dead. maybe UUB is workable, but hopefully I'm not paying life for a second time.
Do I want to squeeze into an aggressive red deck for extra lightning bolts? I'd rather play a creature or literally anything that isn't double blue.
I just don't see much a point. It's good for versatility if my graveyard is filling up with spells. In, like, a mono-blue deck or maybe a couple of U/x decks. But, if I want a highly restrictive card, it should do something unique and exciting, and also good. I would no sooner cube with this card than I would, I dunno, Truefire Captain?
For example, at a total of 1UUU mana this card better be cryptic command or better, however it is not. Too many blue spells with UU in their cost to be reused in cube. The UU cost of this card is a serious weakness and that alone is the reason why I don't think it is 540 and less cubable. That extra colored cost is very real and plenty of cards don't make the cut for that reason alone at at 2 and 3 cmc (or similar triple mono-colored cost at 4-5 cmc).
This is where I'm at on here - I don't think it'll be fitting into my 720 list.
For a card with this restrictive of a cost, it needs to be able to do anything. Right now, in blue, the only cards I have that are this mana-intensive are Cryptic Command and Very Cryptic Command(D). The un-command would be one of the first cards I'd take out of blue if I ever went down to 630 - even now, I'm pretty uncomfortable with having a pair of UUU cards that are both a) reactive and b) want to be able to be played on turn 4. Since cards cast with Mission Briefing are typically going to be blue, I'm holding it to the same standard and...no, it's not nearly as flexible as those two.
Have a solid amount of mission briefing testing under my belt now...
Verdict:
Very good card in a heavy blue deck with blue power.
Solid playable in a heavy blue deck operating primarily at instant speed that has access to a variety of counter spells, removal spells and draw spells.
Playable in a deck with 8-9 blue sources and blue power.
Unplayable outside of that.
I've decided to cut mission briefing after the testing period due to it's narrowness. There's a lot of cards that are almost as good as it in heavy blue decks that will see play in more archetypes than mission briefing. IE A cancel with upside (Sinister sabotage/Disallow). There's enough cards in cube that supplement and further break blue power, that I dont need another. Already seeing plenty of time walk decks with 3+ ways to return it, tutor it or flash it back.
Oh ok, that makes sense. Yea I guess setting the absolute baseline to share color makes sense as although it may not be what you almost ever use in real gameplay, it's important that you always have the option to safely Mana Leak or the like, even if you don't think it's necessary in the moment.
Haha it's all good I don't mind not getting feedback on long posts. I came home high as **** last night and apparently I wrote like 4 enormous posts that could have easily been summarized in 5 or 6 sentences each, but to be honest I don't even remember half of what I wrote so it doesn't bother me.
On a more serious note, my first bullet point was simply regarding that Cryptic is good if you can cast it, and this card is likely the same. I guess it's possible that it's could be consistently harder to cast then a Cryptic, but I'd honestly doubt that it's that big of a deal most of the time and I'm honestly willing to back up calibretto on this one.
I can't really argue against this point because the basis for my statement was for my cube and those similar to it in size and design, and if your cube happens to play expensive card draw spells I suppose that increases this card's stock for a cube like yours substantially.
Cheers, and happy cubing.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Ahhh wow, just checked over your list, you play way less draw spells than I do.. No Dig through time or treasure cruise likely makes the surveil 2 worse as well....
and I can relate to the other thing, adderall has been at the root of most of my tl;dr essays lol.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
I used to constantly use Vyvanse recreationally, and I had a whole system down for how to fall asleep when I clearly wasn’t in the mood. I’ve had many a sleepless nights from adderrall, and it always makes me completely lose my scope of time passing.
I can't disagree more. I think you drastically overvalue what the difference between 1C and CC really is in terms of how cards actually play. There are so many factors to consider when evaluating a card's casting cost and mana requirements. Obviously 1C is preferred to CC for the same (or better) effect, but CC isn't that taxing in the average two color deck, especially when that spell is not necessarily a turn two spell.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
I heavily disagree. A 2-cmc CC spell really has to be worth it for me to even consider running it. A lot of 3 drops are 1CC, and it can be really problematic if your 2-drops / 3-drops are like UU / 1WW / 1BW / etc.
Wtwlf123 actually lays out the math in his Mana Short article: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/articles-podcasts-and-guides/547012-article-mana-short-a-study-in-limited-resource
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
It's actually just statistics and probability. It takes roughly twice as many sources of blue to use a UU spell on T4 than it does to use a 1U spell on T4. It's the difference between needing 10 sources of blue to effectively cast the spell reliably and only needing 5. If that doesn't seem significant to you, I think you're undervaluing the importance of mana demand.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Is t4 snappy the most common use though? It's generally not for us, although it's certainly important to have the option. And in your evaluation, it's not 1 source vs 2 sources, it's actually 3 sources vs 4 sources to flashback counterspell, and 3 sources vs 2 sources to flashback leak. And by this evaluation, cryptic should be a garbage card because to have 3 U sources on turn 4 you need 15 U sources - yet I don't see people pushing for cutting cryptic. Plus these issues are mitigated by being in various decks - any U deck can have card draw, UG gets extra sources from creatures and ramp spells, white can have land tax, etc.
I think given the number of times this is a late game play, plus the number of times this will be flashing back a red, black, or white removal spell, it won't be as backbreaking that it's UU as a card you need to play on turn 2 or 3 is, since the chances of wanting to use it to flashback a blue spell on turn 3 are pretty slim.
Maybe it will be the case that I find this always stuck in my hand because I'm short exactly one blue mana. I think the much more likely scenario if the card isn't good enough is that it turns out surveil 2 isn't worth not leaving a body behind.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
While a bit offtopic: I would really suggest anyone who is unsure about how much difference there is between CC vs 1C, or similar affairs to read this excellent article by Frank Karsten.
https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/frank-analysis-how-many-colored-mana-sources-do-you-need-to-consistently-cast-your-spells/
While you will almost never build "sufficient" mana bases in cube, it does give a nice understanding how many sources you need. The article also contains nice tables for reference.
It's critical to have the option available, and it's far easier to do with a 1U spell than a UU one. And yes, Snappy IS commonly used to flashback 2cc spells on T4. I would need this card to be reliably capable of making the same plays, otherwise I'd rather be using a different spell that will be less narrow in the windows where it's useful to me.
I already addressed this. I'm willing to have Cryptic be narrow because it's completely broken. This card isn't, so a commonly needed 1UUU cost for this card isn't as justifiable.
We already know this. This isn't about Briefing vs Snapcaster, because that's a no-brainer. It's about 1U vs UU, which is currently being undervalued by too many folks.
..........
The bottom line is that this card would be a very easy include for me if it cost 1U, because it opens up so many additional plays for decks that won't be able to use it because it costs UU instead. It makes a tremendous difference. Night and day different, actually. As I already specified, the amount of blue mana sources needed to effectively use this card damn-near doubles in any window in which you're casting it compared to what the colored mana demand would look like if it had a better mana cost.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
While I agree that cost is certainly a factor in card evaluation and a card needs to be good enough to warrant that CC cost, I don't think a CC cost should be the sole reason it doesn't make the cut. A slam dunk at 1U should is not just fringe playable at UU, imo. It's certainly somewhat worse because of that, but that doesn't suddenly make it unplayable.
In that example, assume you're playing a UW deck splashing Vindicate or something. If we assume that you've taken those mana requirements into account when drafting/building, then we have to assume that you've put a mana base together that will work with those requirements in most cases. Most likely you don't need UU on turn two for that Counterspell (or Mission Briefing to keep it on point here), so it's ok to just play a second color. Your deck probably has other 1U and 1W cards it can play anyway. And if the splash is Vindicate, you probably don't have to have a black source on three. Games of Magic all play out differently. I'm not trying to down play the requirements of putting all those cards in the same deck, you do have to take that into account when putting the mana base together, but I think that if you've put together something reasonable for your mana base then your deck will probably play out just fine. It's not going to be game after game of color screw because you could only fit eight blue sources in the deck instead of ten.
Right. I get the math and the statistics. My point is that even if the stats say I need ten blue sources to reliably cast a UU spell on turn four, how often will that actually come up in game play if I only run eight sources for my one UU card? How often will I be sitting on Counterspell on turn four with only one blue source in play? How often will you not have the two blue, but also not have the Counterspell? The inherent variance of Magic needs to play some part in the evaluation of these cards, not just the math and the statistics. Obviously there will be some amount of times where you lose because of mana troubles, but that would be true even if you had perfect mana based on the percentages and statistics.
And again, I'm not discounting double color costs as being meaningless to your mana requirements. There's an obvious cost to including cards like that in your deck, but it's not a cost that's impossible to pay. And in most games of Magic, it probably won't even come up assuming you're not trying to splash a UU card off three Islands.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
I think the 2nd quote is from calibretto, not steve_man.
Yes, it 100% is. There are hundreds of Magic cards that would go from not good enough to immediate cube contenders with a change from a CC cost to a 1C cost. Or a 1CC to 2C cost, or 2CC to 3C cost, for that matter.
If we can't even agree on this basic principle, we need to agree to disagree and move on.
It does! It's the most important part. Mana is already fickle, and you have to deal with all kinds of inconsistencies across the board between mana demand, total mana source requirements, mulligans, disruption... Why on Earth would I want to compound all those inconsistencies by setting myself up for failure from the beginning?
You go from a ~75% chance of having the mana you need to ~60%. So ~15% of the time? That is statistically significant to me, and it shows in practice as well as in theory with regularity.
..........
And this is assuming I'm playing Briefing on T4 at the earliest. You know how often Snappy gets used on T3 to flash back cantrips, bolts, durresses and the like? I go from needing ~6 sources of blue to have a 75% chance of flashing back a Lightning Bolt or Thoughtseize on T3 with Snapcaster to needing ~12 sources with Briefing. If you don't think that's significant, I don't know what else I can say.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I think these are fair arguments against it in terms of the mana cost. I still think it deserves a test, though, to see just how often the heavy blue requirement is detrimental. The effect is powerful, so I think that alone means this warrants a test in medium to larger lists.
I think this is where we have to chalk what shows in practice up to different experiences and move on. Like I said before, I'm not advocating trying to splash Cryptic Command off three blue sources. I try to use the math and statistics to build what I feel are educated mana bases and exclude CC cards when I can't justify them in my deck. But I don't personally see a 15% statistic as super relevant in terms of how the games actually play out. Occasionally I'll get color screwed and it'll cost me the game because I needed to counter that finisher on turn five. Occasionally I'll get color screwed and it won't matter because I didn't even see Counterspell. Most of the time, though, it'll play out just fine. I guess I just feel like it's not that serious.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
However, the 60% to 75% debate has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. We're not talking about a 2 source difference in this case. We're talking about doubling the number of required sources to maintain the same effectiveness. I can't imagine a world where that's not significant.
But, you don't feel like it matters. I do. We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Please draft my Cube! I'll draft yours in return! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/86999
1UUU for Mana leak is not. I'd rather play Condescend for 3U and suffer the lack of a GY filler, in exchange for never accidentally drawing a blank while my graveyard has no desirable targets.
1UUUUU for a Cryptic Command is not. I don't even think I can cast that, ever.
4RRUU for a Wildfire might work, by why would this even be in my deck? I'm pretty sure I want mana rocks and flametongue kavu, neither of which work with this card.
Do I want an extra Reanimate? Sure as hell can't use it on my Animate Dead. maybe UUB is workable, but hopefully I'm not paying life for a second time.
Do I want to squeeze into an aggressive red deck for extra lightning bolts? I'd rather play a creature or literally anything that isn't double blue.
I just don't see much a point. It's good for versatility if my graveyard is filling up with spells. In, like, a mono-blue deck or maybe a couple of U/x decks. But, if I want a highly restrictive card, it should do something unique and exciting, and also good. I would no sooner cube with this card than I would, I dunno, Truefire Captain?
This is where I'm at on here - I don't think it'll be fitting into my 720 list.
For a card with this restrictive of a cost, it needs to be able to do anything. Right now, in blue, the only cards I have that are this mana-intensive are Cryptic Command and Very Cryptic Command(D). The un-command would be one of the first cards I'd take out of blue if I ever went down to 630 - even now, I'm pretty uncomfortable with having a pair of UUU cards that are both a) reactive and b) want to be able to be played on turn 4. Since cards cast with Mission Briefing are typically going to be blue, I'm holding it to the same standard and...no, it's not nearly as flexible as those two.
Verdict:
Very good card in a heavy blue deck with blue power.
Solid playable in a heavy blue deck operating primarily at instant speed that has access to a variety of counter spells, removal spells and draw spells.
Playable in a deck with 8-9 blue sources and blue power.
Unplayable outside of that.
I've decided to cut mission briefing after the testing period due to it's narrowness. There's a lot of cards that are almost as good as it in heavy blue decks that will see play in more archetypes than mission briefing. IE A cancel with upside (Sinister sabotage/Disallow). There's enough cards in cube that supplement and further break blue power, that I dont need another. Already seeing plenty of time walk decks with 3+ ways to return it, tutor it or flash it back.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg