Running a map and glimmers instead of more cloudpost reduces the chances that the post player will end up with 4+ clouds in the end, depending how the shuffle rng turned out at 450 cards. for the post player its totally fine to pick a glimmer instead of a cloud to get more locust and some extra life totally doesnt hurt.
getting 3/4 posts at 360 is just a guess, but i can totally see another player either hatepicking a post later in the draft after he passed the first 3 or trying to get some posts in the early as well. running only 2 posts in your deck comes with basically no drawback and still some payoff.
I wouldn't run them if I only got two of them. They're colorless sources that come into play tapped.
EDIT: I do think Glimmerposts are somewhat reasonable. I don't think I'd play only 2 though.
My decision to cut duals was criticized (I've since swapped the 3 color Obelisks and the creatures like Helionaut for the Signets) for making multicolor decks worse. Using that same reasoning I wouldn't dilute my deck's mana base in the vain hope of getting 2 extra colorless mana. I'd do it if I had a reasonable chance of having three on the field, which would require 5-6 pieces in a deck.
Off color Signets and bouncelands are higher up on the pick order than having 2 cloudposts in your deck.
It's one thing to cut swamps for a Haunted Fengraf or Desert, or for the 5-6 Cloudposts you got to draft. But not for just two.
___________________
Something I have to remind myself is that if I put a fun card in the cube but it's a bad card and no one ever puts it in their decks, then it ceases to be a fun card because it will never see any play.
offcolor signets usually eat a deckslot, while 2 posts wont. same reason why its bad to cut duals btw. they seem worse than offcolor bouncelands though, but not much and id still play them in decks that can use exessive mana like rebuy spells or x-spells. 2 colorloss sources will also not become too problematic, when you still run 15 colored sources. anyway thats not the point here anyways.
running 5-6 posts in a 40 card deck would be just crazy
offcolor signets usually eat a deckslot, while 2 posts wont. same reason why its bad to cut duals btw. they seem worse than offcolor bouncelands though, but not much and id still play them in decks that can use exessive mana like rebuy spells or x-spells. 2 colorloss sources will also not become too problematic, when you still run 15 colored sources. anyway thats not the point here anyways.
running 5-6 posts in a 40 card deck would be just crazy
Why would it? If you see 20 cards in a game that's half of them.
It's comparable to Tron.
You guys will argue with me about how terrible merely okay cards are, and yet will insist that 2 Cloudposts in a deck are worth cutting colored sources for.
None of the Assembly-Workers, even the one that we started with, really has the "wow-factor" that I'm looking for. It's very cute, but I think the draft experience will be "wow, that's cute" and then they'll draft something else unless they want to do something funny.
We say it because it's something of a worst-case for low-cost ramp strategy (all it costs you are some moderate to high picks that make late pick cards better). In comparison, if I went with Tron, the fail case is 1-2 unplayable cards because someone grabbed the third one. Even if I landed on Tron instead of Post, I would not give access to that many Tron pieces. I feel like you're really underestimating just how powerful extra colorless mana can be if you just take one modest payoff, like a Red X-spell, anything with Buyback, or just a random fatty who you can drop 2-4 turns early.
I think 3 is the most desirable number to have in a deck, since it gives you a pretty good chance of drawing 2 (once you have 2 in play they get really good) with modest support from otherwise decent cards. Maps and Glimmerposts are definitely good safety valves that might mess with that number a bit, but the cards just seem so much worse and less exciting to me while accomplishing the same basic goal.
This, in my mind, is what discussing a developing idea in a forum can be good for- figuring out numbers to test with before going all-in on them, and possibly tapping the experience of other people who have tried this before. It doesn't seem like anybody here has tried Post before, so it's just theory-crafting. 2 is the lowest possible number that I would play Posts at, but I'd have to have the right deck for it. 4 is probably the highest number that I would deem an acceptable power level. Once you're at 5 (and possibly higher), you start to hit a reliably cartoonish amount of mana that stops making drafting the strategy acceptable and starts making it a dominant archetype. It's important to remember that your average aggro deck isn't all that interested in Post. The decks that want Post are going to be late-game oriented and have access to more pieces of card advantage, making it more likely that you'll draw more pieces of Tron naturally.
The Cloudpost thing and the mana fixing question feels a bit disconnected to me. The problem with your mana fixing was that it made sure that none of your decks had access to good mana fixing. Not all of my Fixing gets used in a given draft, but players should be able to get the lands that they need to make their decks basically work. Only decks that are drafted to want Post, probably at the expense of other nonbasic lands, will want Post. The drafter has a lot of control over their deck's mana, basically making it a different strategy that a player could pursue. Getting extra mana without costing you deck slots is pretty huge.
It seems like we've mostly agreed that Scion of Ugin is too slow for most Cubes. Does that calculus change at all with access to Posts?
EDIT: I realize that I got this in right after Marl was complaining about word count. That is pretty funny, but sorry Marl.
None of the Assembly-Workers, even the one that we started with, really has the "wow-factor" that I'm looking for. It's very cute, but I think the draft experience will be "wow, that's cute" and then they'll draft something else unless they want to do something funny.
We say it because it's something of a worst-case for low-cost ramp strategy (all it costs you are some moderate to high picks that make late pick cards better). In comparison, if I went with Tron, the fail case is 1-2 unplayable cards because someone grabbed the third one. Even if I landed on Tron instead of Post, I would not give access to that many Tron pieces. I feel like you're really underestimating just how powerful extra colorless mana can be if you just take one modest payoff, like a Red X-spell, anything with Buyback, or just a random fatty who you can drop 2-4 turns early.
I think 3 is the most desirable number to have in a deck, since it gives you a pretty good chance of drawing 2 (once you have 2 in play they get really good) with modest support from otherwise decent cards. Maps and Glimmerposts are definitely good safety valves that might mess with that number a bit, but the cards just seem so much worse and less exciting to me while accomplishing the same basic goal.
This, in my mind, is what discussing a developing idea in a forum can be good for- figuring out numbers to test with before going all-in on them, and possibly tapping the experience of other people who have tried this before. It doesn't seem like anybody here has tried Post before, so it's just theory-crafting. 2 is the lowest possible number that I would play Posts at, but I'd have to have the right deck for it. 4 is probably the highest number that I would deem an acceptable power level. Once you're at 5 (and possibly higher), you start to hit a reliably cartoonish amount of mana that stops making drafting the strategy acceptable and starts making it a dominant archetype. It's important to remember that your average aggro deck isn't all that interested in Post. The decks that want Post are going to be late-game oriented and have access to more pieces of card advantage, making it more likely that you'll draw more pieces of Tron naturally.
The Cloudpost thing and the mana fixing question feels a bit disconnected to me. The problem with your mana fixing was that it made sure that none of your decks had access to good mana fixing. Not all of my Fixing gets used in a given draft, but players should be able to get the lands that they need to make their decks basically work. Only decks that are drafted to want Post, probably at the expense of other nonbasic lands, will want Post. The drafter has a lot of control over their deck's mana, basically making it a different strategy that a player could pursue. Getting extra mana without costing you deck slots is pretty huge.
It seems like we've mostly agreed that Scion of Ugin is too slow for most Cubes. Does that calculus change at all with access to Posts?
EDIT: I realize that I got this in right after Marl was complaining about word count. That is pretty funny, but sorry Marl.
I agree that X strategies or buyback spells do get a significant buff from super mana. Perhaps it would be too good. But regardless of whether or not is was too dominant, it just wouldn't be fun to have The King of Mana bolt you for 15 5-6 turns in.
I also think that Glimmerposts are a safety valve. The other safety valve would be to cut some of the super mana bombs and allow unfettered Big Mana.
It seems to me that you simultaneously want to play with EZTron mana but don't actually want anyone to actually get any use out Cloudpost. I don't think you can have both reasonable access to big mana and X strategies at the same time.
The two ways of going about what you want is to either have nothing that gets abusive with Tron mana, or to just never let anyone get Tron mana, either by not having it in your cube to begin with or by only having a tiny amount of it.
The Tron numbers come from constructed Tron decks having half of their mana base be Tron lands. So if 9 of your lands were Tron lands in limited, that's roughly equal. Maybe that's too high.
It definitely feels like your definition of "tiny amount" is different from mine, and possibly underestimates how powerful a boost in mana is. This actually kind of lines up with how you seem to approach card draw, too, which is interesting. I basically want it to do the work of other draft-in-multiple cards in a normal set, like Goblin Gathering in Ravnica Allegiance. Since our power level is higher than Ravnica Allegiance, though, I want my reward to feel appropriately powerful. 4 Cloudposts in a 450 card Cube means that the average draft will have about 3 (I think it's like 3.2) Cloudposts per draft. The average Ravnica Allegiance draft has I think around 2.4 Goblin Gatherings per draft. So I get a better payoff (on the potentially incorrect theory that ramp is better than some random 1/1s) with more copies in a draft. Maybe it doesn't work, I don't know, but that is basically what I am going for.
I think you underrate Self-Assembler. If I were willing to break the singleton rules I would definitely play it. Multiple 4/4s are way better than a single Scion of Ugin, which just dies to a single removal.
Oh, I actually think Self Assembler is a really, really good suggestion from a sheer "how does it play" perspective. I really like the Aurochs/Assembler idea as a ramp payoff. I just think it's a much harder sell from a "why is this in here?" perspective. I tell people that there are 4 Cloudposts, the reaction is basically "oh, sure, that makes sense." I tell people I'm running 3-4 Self-Assemblers, and I think they'd get the impression that I was just being cute.
EDIT: For an example of just how much I like the idea, I actually think I would try it if I decide Cloudpost isn't worth the hassle. I think multiple copies of a card is a trick that a Cube can only really pull once while still being considered a Cube, and Cloudpost gives the Cube more ramp with a more iconic card while Assembler gives ramp (and control) strategies a better payoff with a much less iconic card. Which one do slower strategies need more?
Oh, I actually think Self Assembler is a really, really good suggestion from a sheer "how does it play" perspective. I really like the Aurochs/Assembler idea as a ramp payoff. I just think it's a much harder sell from a "why is this in here?" perspective. I tell people that there are 4 Cloudposts, the reaction is basically "oh, sure, that makes sense." I tell people I'm running 3-4 Self-Assemblers, and I think they'd get the impression that I was just being cute.
EDIT: For an example of just how much I like the idea, I actually think I would try it if I decide Cloudpost isn't worth the hassle. I think multiple copies of a card is a trick that a Cube can only really pull once while still being considered a Cube, and Cloudpost gives the Cube more ramp with a more iconic card while Assembler gives ramp (and control) strategies a better payoff with a much less iconic card. Which one do slower strategies need more?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I understand how abusive X strategies would get if people had easy access to big mana.
My suggestion was to cut those X strategies so that you wouldn't be able to abuse big mana, and to allow easy access to big mana. I don't think both "Abusive X spells" and something like Tron can coexist if you want a fun cube, it's one or the other.
There are other Squadron Hawk cards that are common.
There is a 4-5 mana mana blue 2/2 bird one, there is Legion Conquistadors, the aforementioned Self-Assemblers (you can go five deep with them), and there is a green elf one.
Maybe you could make the payoff for Big Mana some of those and some Big Bois like Striped Riverwinder or the overpriced Flash creatures.
Oh, I figured that is what you were presenting as one of the options, I just don't really feel like that option is the answer here. Cloudpost is a cute idea that might boost a slightly underperforming strategy while letting me play with some iconic cards. If it's not doing that, I'm not interested in it. I certainly don't want to warp my Cube to accommodate a silly strategy, then take away any meaningful payoff for that strategy. The extent to which you are only interested in boosting mana to meme-levels is very interesting to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My 450 Card Pauper Cube is going through major renovations. Feedback appreciated!
i think we/you are overcomplicating the "problem" right now. I suggest you just add some amount 4-6 clourdpost + 2-4 Glimmerpost to your cube and play it.
there are a bunch of eldrazi that profit from colorless mana, you might want to check them out as well. there is a really strong 2 drop.
I agree that at this point just testing is going to do anything. I am kind of curious about whether Self-Assembler is good or possibly even better for the role as ramp/control support, so I'm still open to suggestions there. But I'm prepared to say that at this point the Cloudpost discussion is best resolved by just playing it out and reporting on results. I'll tell you if I find anything interesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My 450 Card Pauper Cube is going through major renovations. Feedback appreciated!
I don't see how Lab Rats is significantly worse than Sprout Swarm. It's worse sure, but it's still a bomb.
Friend, you really should try and play a game of Magic first before you join discussions like that.
I'll be the bad guy and tell you that right now everyone who's posting here except you is torn between continually trying to be nice and trying to help you with your questions and requests, which is hard enough given that you have zero experience in this game and zero willingness to second-guess anything you say, and just giving up and being frustrated that this topic has been spammed with useless content for the last 10 pages or so. Literally every one of the hundreds of sentences you've written on the last pages is a testimony of the fact that you have absolutely no clue about how an actual game of Limited Magic with other human beings could play out. Pleas stop wasting our and your own time and come back once you've actually played with the cards you're suggesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Someday, someone will best me. But it won't be today, and it won't be you."
I don't see how Lab Rats is significantly worse than Sprout Swarm. It's worse sure, but it's still a bomb.
Friend, you really should try and play a game of Magic first before you join discussions like that.
I'll be the bad guy and tell you that right now everyone who's posting here except you is torn between continually trying to be nice and trying to help you with your questions and requests, which is hard enough given that you have zero experience in this game and zero willingness to second-guess anything you say, and just giving up and being frustrated that this topic has been spammed with useless content for the last 10 pages or so. Literally every one of the hundreds of sentences you've written on the last pages is a testimony of the fact that you have absolutely no clue about how an actual game of Limited Magic with other human beings could play out. Pleas stop wasting our and your own time and come back once you've actually played with the cards you're suggesting.
Typically I've only ever seen Sprout Swarm activated once, maybe twice a turn. It's an instant sure, but most of the time there is nothing else you're going to cast in the same turn so that's irrelevant.
By the time you can do it 2-3 times a turn you're probably winning.
So no, I don't see Lab Rats as significantly worse than Sprout Swarm. It's like saying Volcanic Hammer is worse than Lightning Bolt. Of course it is worse, but not significantly (in a limited environment). They're the same thing 80% of the time.
Playing this game for years means absolutely nothing past the first month or two of playing the game. Referencing my experience with the game is essentially an ad hominem. This isn't brain surgery that we're discussing, it's a card game that's 60% luck based. Having played this game for 20 years is no different than having played it for only one.
Longtime Magic players just have crustier views on the game and think that they're smarter than people that have been playing for less time, that's the only difference that experience grants you with this game.
I don't see how Lab Rats is significantly worse than Sprout Swarm. It's worse sure, but it's still a bomb.
Friend, you really should try and play a game of Magic first before you join discussions like that.
I'll be the bad guy and tell you that right now everyone who's posting here except you is torn between continually trying to be nice and trying to help you with your questions and requests, which is hard enough given that you have zero experience in this game and zero willingness to second-guess anything you say, and just giving up and being frustrated that this topic has been spammed with useless content for the last 10 pages or so. Literally every one of the hundreds of sentences you've written on the last pages is a testimony of the fact that you have absolutely no clue about how an actual game of Limited Magic with other human beings could play out. Pleas stop wasting our and your own time and come back once you've actually played with the cards you're suggesting.
Typically I've only ever seen Sprout Swarm activated once, maybe twice a turn. It's an instant sure, but most of the time there is nothing else you're going to cast in the same turn so that's irrelevant.
By the time you can do it 2-3 times a turn you're probably winning.
So no, I don't see Lab Rats as significantly worse than Sprout Swarm. It's like saying Volcanic Hammer is worse than Lightning Bolt. Of course it is worse, but not significantly (in a limited environment). They're the same thing 80% of the time.
Playing this game for years means absolutely nothing past the first month or two of playing the game. Referencing my experience with the game is essentially an ad hominem. This isn't brain surgery that we're discussing, it's a card game that's 60% luck based. Having played this game for 20 years is no different than having played it for only one.
Longtime Magic players just have crustier views on the game and think that they're smarter than people that have been playing for less time, that's the only difference that experience grants you with this game.
this whole post is just another example how disconnected you are.
experience is everything in magic. with so many different cards, formats and other variables its almost impossible to make the same decision as someone who just spent way more time with the game.
And saying Bolt is even remotely close to Volcanic Hammer, at this point one might jump to the conclusion you litereally never played a single game of magic ever. The difference between a sorcery and an instant alone is like 100% difference on how cards play out.
When it comes to Lab Rats, one is not only an instant over sorcery, but Swam can also pay for itself with the token you are actually creating.
Dude, you are the hardest troll ever, without even noticing.
Public Mod Note
(Ulka):
Infraction for flaming and Baiting
"You hold a controversial viewpoint that I disagree with, therefore you're a troll."
Um, okay.
Volcanic Hammer is essentially a carbon copy of Lightning Bolt in limited. Obviously if both were in the same pack I'd choose Bolt, but if I was in red and Volcanic Hammer was in a pack, it would be my first pick just like Bolt is a first pick.
Lab Rats isn't *that* much worse than Sprout Swarm.
If the board has stabilized and I have a card like Lab Rats or Sprout Swarm and you don't, eventually I will win whether I make (potentially multiple) tokens at instant speed or 1 token a turn at sorcery speed. Both are the same sort of end game finisher card.
Saying magic is 60% luck is just a disservice to both your own skill and other peoples skill saying that is also wrong.Sure Magic involves luck but If that 60% were correct you wouldn't see the same people winning a lot more that other people which is a thing that happens and if a game is more than half luck based you'd see way more random winners and that is a statistical fact.
There is also a huge difference in bolt vs. hammer not all the time but in the critical times aka the early turns.
Being an instant you can react to stuff which means it's less likely they can bait out removal since you can just wait and see what they play before commiting. It also saves you your mana on your turn for cards you can only play there so it's a more efficient mana usage as well.
T1
Usually not the time to play either but you could play bolt.
T2
If there is a need to kill a creature with bolt you can follow up with a one drop and increase the pressure with a hammer the opponent is the first with the opportunity to increase pressure.
T3
With both you can have a followup but with bolt it can be up to 3 mana (due to the fact it is an instant) with hammer 1.
and so on until T7-8 where there is still a difference in power but not so pronounced because the average number of 5-8 drops in a deck and the likelihood of having multiple lower drops still in hand.
If the board has stabilized and I have a card like Lab Rats or Sprout Swarm and you don't, eventually I will win whether I make (potentially multiple) tokens at instant speed or 1 token a turn at sorcery speed. Both are the same sort of end game finisher card.
That is kind of true for an empty stabilized board but sprout swarm allows you to catch up on a board by being able to snatch up attackers due to instant speed and also making tokens much much faster than what labrat can do so in general sprout swarm does more than lab rats.
EDIT:
Volcanic Hammer is essentially a carbon copy of Lightning Bolt in limited. Obviously if both were in the same pack I'd choose Bolt, but if I was in red and Volcanic Hammer was in a pack, it would be my first pick just like Bolt is a first pick.
Yes but that alone doesn't mean it's the same hammer is still a good card but just because both are first pickable doesn't mean they are the same.
Edit2:
Oh and just as swarm bolt interacts better in combat than hammer as it does have more opportunity to kill larger threats, also way cooler with first strike creatures than the hammer.
"You hold a controversial viewpoint that I disagree with, therefore you're a troll."
Um, okay.
See, this topic really isn't controversial in the slightest. Lab Rats is a total garbage card and Sprout Swarm is one of the strongest cards that has ever been printed with a black symbol. A controversial topic is by definition something that causes public debate. There was never any public debate on Swarm vs Lab Rats, because everyone who has ever played with at least one of them and has some experience and/or a sane mind would know how different they are.
And this is true for every statement you've made on this thread. You bring up utter garbage and defend it with totally uninformed as well as straight up wrong theories, and every time someone has a valid argument against you you play the "don't hate me just because my opinion is different" card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Someday, someone will best me. But it won't be today, and it won't be you."
I tried defending saltmaster for his differnt cube but the more this goes on I realize that that was a mistake. as one of the top players and deck builders back when I played competative at my LGS I'm shocked that you would say this game is 60% luck, those are the words of someone who doesn't know what they are doing, sure top decking the card you need to win is luck but getting to the point where all you need is one card that you specificaly put in your deck to win is skill, there is some luck involved but I would say 90% of the game is skill and knowledge of other cards and the meta. I'm sorry but the way you compare cards to each other is so wrong, just because a card has simmilar effect doesn't make it as good as a top card. If you want to run the cards you like that's fine but you can't come in here and flame on everyone for knowing what is actually good and giving you advise. now I'm sounding like the judgmental standard or modern magic player that calls you out for having a bad deck just because you lost or becasue you wanted to try something different, everyone is trying to be helpfull but you are ignoring the help and saying they are wrong.
the manacost of bolt is relatively irrelevant compared to hammer. if it was incinerate vs bolt, fine. but instant speed allows to react to pump, auras, basically every effect. sorcery speed is infintely worse, especially when it comes to removal.
the luck involved in magic is depending on the format. while legacy has all the tools to decrease variance, since it has access to 4x brainstorm, fetchlands and the other cantrips, formats like standard or limited are way higher on the luck scale. its kinda nonsense to come up with percentages out of the blue, but i wouldnt be surprised if it actually was 60%+ in some formats, especially something like sealed. on tournaments you on top have the possiblity to get paired to your autolose or win.
the good players are playing good sure, but they also grind out the rng like crazy.
Differing opinions are alright to discuss. That is why we have these forums for discussion. However calling someone names will not be tolerated. If you feel someone is trolling please the report function so myself or another Moderator can take a look at the post in question. Remember to discuss with civility.
Yeah, I'm going to eat some crow here as well. I keep on wanting to stand up for Saltmaster (I actually don't think the Bolt vs. Hammer example is a bad one as far as his Cube goes and parts of his design philosophy, but it's not very on-point as a comparison for Lab Rats vs. Sprout Swarm), but the "Magic is 60% luck" thing really just speaks to a core problem that I don't see changing any time soon. Magic is a game in which luck plays a significant role, but saying that success and failure is largely a matter of fate just feels like a way to avoid introspection and helps to make sure that your play skill never improves. Experience isn't the only thing that matters, but it matters a lot. To the extent that it doesn't matter, where a newer player quickly rises to the top, it's because they evaluate their play and the game very critically and have a particular attitude towards the game. You have shown little interest in this sort of analysis.
It doesn't help that you have chosen to approach the game on an axis where experience becomes way more important. It seems like you're interested in building your Cube to make a specific play experience divorced from power level, but it never feels like you have played that much with it. Knowing how something plays is a question that only experience will teach you. I don't think that this forum should make experience a prerequisite for participation, but you should be aware that I find your commentary on my Cube most helpful as "this is how a newer or less experienced player would approach the Cube and what they would think." That is actually extremely helpful for me, because I treat my Cube as a bit more of a "travelling roadshow" that I regularly play with newer or less experienced players, but not everyone here is interested in that perspective and you don't seem particularly aware that you are providing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My 450 Card Pauper Cube is going through major renovations. Feedback appreciated!
Lab Rats is a pretty good card where experience matters. I never thought it was close as good as sprout, but i also tried it at some point. card is pretty horrible tbh, Id really like to run them in my t2, because its one of the few cards that allows for a continues stream of sac targets, but its just too slow and clunky.
I wouldn't run them if I only got two of them. They're colorless sources that come into play tapped.
EDIT: I do think Glimmerposts are somewhat reasonable. I don't think I'd play only 2 though.
My decision to cut duals was criticized (I've since swapped the 3 color Obelisks and the creatures like Helionaut for the Signets) for making multicolor decks worse. Using that same reasoning I wouldn't dilute my deck's mana base in the vain hope of getting 2 extra colorless mana. I'd do it if I had a reasonable chance of having three on the field, which would require 5-6 pieces in a deck.
Off color Signets and bouncelands are higher up on the pick order than having 2 cloudposts in your deck.
It's one thing to cut swamps for a Haunted Fengraf or Desert, or for the 5-6 Cloudposts you got to draft. But not for just two.
___________________
Something I have to remind myself is that if I put a fun card in the cube but it's a bad card and no one ever puts it in their decks, then it ceases to be a fun card because it will never see any play.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
running 5-6 posts in a 40 card deck would be just crazy
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Why would it? If you see 20 cards in a game that's half of them.
It's comparable to Tron.
You guys will argue with me about how terrible merely okay cards are, and yet will insist that 2 Cloudposts in a deck are worth cutting colored sources for.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
btw salt, if you would accept that you are incredible unexperienced in cubing and magic in general, it would be much easier to discuss things
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
It also wouldn't hurt if he struck a deal with a publishing house so they would assign him an editor to get his word count down
We say it because it's something of a worst-case for low-cost ramp strategy (all it costs you are some moderate to high picks that make late pick cards better). In comparison, if I went with Tron, the fail case is 1-2 unplayable cards because someone grabbed the third one. Even if I landed on Tron instead of Post, I would not give access to that many Tron pieces. I feel like you're really underestimating just how powerful extra colorless mana can be if you just take one modest payoff, like a Red X-spell, anything with Buyback, or just a random fatty who you can drop 2-4 turns early.
I think 3 is the most desirable number to have in a deck, since it gives you a pretty good chance of drawing 2 (once you have 2 in play they get really good) with modest support from otherwise decent cards. Maps and Glimmerposts are definitely good safety valves that might mess with that number a bit, but the cards just seem so much worse and less exciting to me while accomplishing the same basic goal.
This, in my mind, is what discussing a developing idea in a forum can be good for- figuring out numbers to test with before going all-in on them, and possibly tapping the experience of other people who have tried this before. It doesn't seem like anybody here has tried Post before, so it's just theory-crafting. 2 is the lowest possible number that I would play Posts at, but I'd have to have the right deck for it. 4 is probably the highest number that I would deem an acceptable power level. Once you're at 5 (and possibly higher), you start to hit a reliably cartoonish amount of mana that stops making drafting the strategy acceptable and starts making it a dominant archetype. It's important to remember that your average aggro deck isn't all that interested in Post. The decks that want Post are going to be late-game oriented and have access to more pieces of card advantage, making it more likely that you'll draw more pieces of Tron naturally.
The Cloudpost thing and the mana fixing question feels a bit disconnected to me. The problem with your mana fixing was that it made sure that none of your decks had access to good mana fixing. Not all of my Fixing gets used in a given draft, but players should be able to get the lands that they need to make their decks basically work. Only decks that are drafted to want Post, probably at the expense of other nonbasic lands, will want Post. The drafter has a lot of control over their deck's mana, basically making it a different strategy that a player could pursue. Getting extra mana without costing you deck slots is pretty huge.
It seems like we've mostly agreed that Scion of Ugin is too slow for most Cubes. Does that calculus change at all with access to Posts?
EDIT: I realize that I got this in right after Marl was complaining about word count. That is pretty funny, but sorry Marl.
Commanders:
Toshiro Umezawa
Rona, Disciple of Gix (Pauper)
I agree that X strategies or buyback spells do get a significant buff from super mana. Perhaps it would be too good. But regardless of whether or not is was too dominant, it just wouldn't be fun to have The King of Mana bolt you for 15 5-6 turns in.
I also think that Glimmerposts are a safety valve. The other safety valve would be to cut some of the super mana bombs and allow unfettered Big Mana.
It seems to me that you simultaneously want to play with EZTron mana but don't actually want anyone to actually get any use out Cloudpost. I don't think you can have both reasonable access to big mana and X strategies at the same time.
The two ways of going about what you want is to either have nothing that gets abusive with Tron mana, or to just never let anyone get Tron mana, either by not having it in your cube to begin with or by only having a tiny amount of it.
The Tron numbers come from constructed Tron decks having half of their mana base be Tron lands. So if 9 of your lands were Tron lands in limited, that's roughly equal. Maybe that's too high.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
Commanders:
Toshiro Umezawa
Rona, Disciple of Gix (Pauper)
Pauper Cube & Artifact Pauper Cube & Multiplayer Cube
Interested in building your own Pauper Cube? Take a look at some of the lists and the following project: The "Evaluate Everything" Project (updated to M21/JMP)
EDIT: For an example of just how much I like the idea, I actually think I would try it if I decide Cloudpost isn't worth the hassle. I think multiple copies of a card is a trick that a Cube can only really pull once while still being considered a Cube, and Cloudpost gives the Cube more ramp with a more iconic card while Assembler gives ramp (and control) strategies a better payoff with a much less iconic card. Which one do slower strategies need more?
Commanders:
Toshiro Umezawa
Rona, Disciple of Gix (Pauper)
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I understand how abusive X strategies would get if people had easy access to big mana.
My suggestion was to cut those X strategies so that you wouldn't be able to abuse big mana, and to allow easy access to big mana. I don't think both "Abusive X spells" and something like Tron can coexist if you want a fun cube, it's one or the other.
There are other Squadron Hawk cards that are common.
There is a 4-5 mana mana blue 2/2 bird one, there is Legion Conquistadors, the aforementioned Self-Assemblers (you can go five deep with them), and there is a green elf one.
Maybe you could make the payoff for Big Mana some of those and some Big Bois like Striped Riverwinder or the overpriced Flash creatures.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
Commanders:
Toshiro Umezawa
Rona, Disciple of Gix (Pauper)
there are a bunch of eldrazi that profit from colorless mana, you might want to check them out as well. there is a really strong 2 drop.
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Commanders:
Toshiro Umezawa
Rona, Disciple of Gix (Pauper)
Friend, you really should try and play a game of Magic first before you join discussions like that.
I'll be the bad guy and tell you that right now everyone who's posting here except you is torn between continually trying to be nice and trying to help you with your questions and requests, which is hard enough given that you have zero experience in this game and zero willingness to second-guess anything you say, and just giving up and being frustrated that this topic has been spammed with useless content for the last 10 pages or so. Literally every one of the hundreds of sentences you've written on the last pages is a testimony of the fact that you have absolutely no clue about how an actual game of Limited Magic with other human beings could play out. Pleas stop wasting our and your own time and come back once you've actually played with the cards you're suggesting.
- Last Word
Typically I've only ever seen Sprout Swarm activated once, maybe twice a turn. It's an instant sure, but most of the time there is nothing else you're going to cast in the same turn so that's irrelevant.
By the time you can do it 2-3 times a turn you're probably winning.
So no, I don't see Lab Rats as significantly worse than Sprout Swarm. It's like saying Volcanic Hammer is worse than Lightning Bolt. Of course it is worse, but not significantly (in a limited environment). They're the same thing 80% of the time.
Playing this game for years means absolutely nothing past the first month or two of playing the game. Referencing my experience with the game is essentially an ad hominem. This isn't brain surgery that we're discussing, it's a card game that's 60% luck based. Having played this game for 20 years is no different than having played it for only one.
Longtime Magic players just have crustier views on the game and think that they're smarter than people that have been playing for less time, that's the only difference that experience grants you with this game.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
this whole post is just another example how disconnected you are.
experience is everything in magic. with so many different cards, formats and other variables its almost impossible to make the same decision as someone who just spent way more time with the game.
And saying Bolt is even remotely close to Volcanic Hammer, at this point one might jump to the conclusion you litereally never played a single game of magic ever. The difference between a sorcery and an instant alone is like 100% difference on how cards play out.
When it comes to Lab Rats, one is not only an instant over sorcery, but Swam can also pay for itself with the token you are actually creating.
Dude, you are the hardest troll ever, without even noticing.
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Um, okay.
Volcanic Hammer is essentially a carbon copy of Lightning Bolt in limited. Obviously if both were in the same pack I'd choose Bolt, but if I was in red and Volcanic Hammer was in a pack, it would be my first pick just like Bolt is a first pick.
Lab Rats isn't *that* much worse than Sprout Swarm.
If the board has stabilized and I have a card like Lab Rats or Sprout Swarm and you don't, eventually I will win whether I make (potentially multiple) tokens at instant speed or 1 token a turn at sorcery speed. Both are the same sort of end game finisher card.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
There is also a huge difference in bolt vs. hammer not all the time but in the critical times aka the early turns.
Being an instant you can react to stuff which means it's less likely they can bait out removal since you can just wait and see what they play before commiting. It also saves you your mana on your turn for cards you can only play there so it's a more efficient mana usage as well.
T1
Usually not the time to play either but you could play bolt.
T2
If there is a need to kill a creature with bolt you can follow up with a one drop and increase the pressure with a hammer the opponent is the first with the opportunity to increase pressure.
T3
With both you can have a followup but with bolt it can be up to 3 mana (due to the fact it is an instant) with hammer 1.
and so on until T7-8 where there is still a difference in power but not so pronounced because the average number of 5-8 drops in a deck and the likelihood of having multiple lower drops still in hand.
That is kind of true for an empty stabilized board but sprout swarm allows you to catch up on a board by being able to snatch up attackers due to instant speed and also making tokens much much faster than what labrat can do so in general sprout swarm does more than lab rats.
EDIT:
Yes but that alone doesn't mean it's the same hammer is still a good card but just because both are first pickable doesn't mean they are the same.
Edit2:
Oh and just as swarm bolt interacts better in combat than hammer as it does have more opportunity to kill larger threats, also way cooler with first strike creatures than the hammer.
See, this topic really isn't controversial in the slightest. Lab Rats is a total garbage card and Sprout Swarm is one of the strongest cards that has ever been printed with a black symbol. A controversial topic is by definition something that causes public debate. There was never any public debate on Swarm vs Lab Rats, because everyone who has ever played with at least one of them and has some experience and/or a sane mind would know how different they are.
And this is true for every statement you've made on this thread. You bring up utter garbage and defend it with totally uninformed as well as straight up wrong theories, and every time someone has a valid argument against you you play the "don't hate me just because my opinion is different" card.
- Last Word
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/9o1
the luck involved in magic is depending on the format. while legacy has all the tools to decrease variance, since it has access to 4x brainstorm, fetchlands and the other cantrips, formats like standard or limited are way higher on the luck scale. its kinda nonsense to come up with percentages out of the blue, but i wouldnt be surprised if it actually was 60%+ in some formats, especially something like sealed. on tournaments you on top have the possiblity to get paired to your autolose or win.
the good players are playing good sure, but they also grind out the rng like crazy.
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Ulka
It doesn't help that you have chosen to approach the game on an axis where experience becomes way more important. It seems like you're interested in building your Cube to make a specific play experience divorced from power level, but it never feels like you have played that much with it. Knowing how something plays is a question that only experience will teach you. I don't think that this forum should make experience a prerequisite for participation, but you should be aware that I find your commentary on my Cube most helpful as "this is how a newer or less experienced player would approach the Cube and what they would think." That is actually extremely helpful for me, because I treat my Cube as a bit more of a "travelling roadshow" that I regularly play with newer or less experienced players, but not everyone here is interested in that perspective and you don't seem particularly aware that you are providing it.
Commanders:
Toshiro Umezawa
Rona, Disciple of Gix (Pauper)
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t