I've never drafted a cube before and neither have my freinds, but after recently becoming obsessed with regualar draft I predict this is something I could spend a lot of time and effort on. I was hoping someone could provide a link- I assume cubetutor is the most popular but any exportable list will do- to a pauper cube that has been played extensively and is proven to be fun and balenced. I'm hoping to find one comprised mostly of modern cards. This is something I plan on getting heavily involved in and I'd like to do a few dozen drafts with a good pauper cube to see what makes it good so I can build my own soon. Thanks for any help and if you feel like it provide criticisms of the provided cube- what makes it, or any cube a good one or a bad one.
Modern cubes are rare and lower-powered, but they're doable if you keep it at 360 cards. Here are the cubes that I used when designing my own. They're all very good, although none of them are modern:
I've checked out a few sig links and I like them- i guess, I don't know anything about cube drafting so that doesn't mean much. wetrat, why is 360 best for low powered cubes? I was thinking of making a cube of 450 just to give it a little more longevity and variability. Not that it matters much for me because I'll only be drafting in person in 4 person drafts so even at 360 we'll only be seeing half the pool.
I've checked out a few sig links and I like them- i guess, I don't know anything about cube drafting so that doesn't mean much. wetrat, why is 360 best for low powered cubes? I was thinking of making a cube of 450 just to give it a little more longevity and variability. Not that it matters much for me because I'll only be drafting in person in 4 person drafts so even at 360 we'll only be seeing half the pool.
The main reason is that if you restrict yourself to only modern-legal cards, you might notice a significant drop in the strength of the cards that are available for you add to get from 360 to 450 cards. This can make a cube feel a bit "diluted", for lack of a better word. That said, I think it's certainly possible to make a good 450 modern-only pauper cube, it just might take more work to balance everything out and you might end up making non-obvious changes in card choice from typical pauper cubes.
Also, with regards to modern-only pauper cubes in general, there is a non-trivial amount of pre-modern cards that can be pretty big role players in most pauper cubes (such as Pestilence), so restricting yourself to only modern-legal cards will change how your cube plays. I don't think you'll have trouble in finding decent creatures to include or in supporting aggro and midrange decks, but supporting control decks might be a bit difficult.
That seems strange to me. If every block for the last 7 or 8 years has supported all main deck styles-aggro, midrange and control- why wouldn't a cube made from these cards support the same deck styles? If built properly of course. Why would I need old cards to make control a viable archetype when it's been there all along? Of course I assume that would mean putting certain cards in and perhaps more importantly leaving some cards-or card types- out, but there should be no reason control can't be an archetype in a modern cube. Cards are only powered or unpowered in their specific context. A card most might consider weak can be very powerful in the right context. Nothing can be judged in a vacuum.
That seems strange to me. If every block for the last 7 or 8 years has supported all main deck styles-aggro, midrange and control- why wouldn't a cube made from these cards support the same deck styles? If built properly of course. Why would I need old cards to make control a viable archetype when it's been there all along? Of course I assume that would mean putting certain cards in and perhaps more importantly leaving some cards-or card types- out, but there should be no reason control can't be an archetype in a modern cube. Cards are only powered or unpowered in their specific context. A card most might consider weak can be very powerful in the right context. Nothing can be judged in a vacuum.
Internal block and set balancing of limited archetypes doesn't necessarily translate to cube balance. First, cubes generally only take a few specific cards from each set. The primary factor for balance within a set's limited format is how the cards in that set interact with each other, not how the cards in that set might interact with other cards from other sets. So when you mix and match cards from various sets you can't guarantee balance even though the sets you're sampling from may be internally balanced.
Second, cubes generally only take the strongest / highest impact cards from each set, and it's usually not the case that those cards represent all core archetypes equally. I haven't done this kind of analysis in a few months, but the most cubeable commons from most modern (and especially post-New World Order) sets are not control-oriented, while the average impact of midrange, tempo, and aggro cards (especially creatures) has increased. In conjunction with this, many of the highest-impact control cards such as the three black sweepers (Pestilence, Crypt Rats, Evincar's Justice) or a decent chunk of blue's non-creature section are pre-modern cards. That's the primary reason why I think supporting control with only modern cards is significantly more difficult than supporting other core archetypes - I don't think the pool of modern-legal cubeable commons is balanced across archetypes. If anything, I think you'd end up with "control" being more of a pure tempo deck in a modern pauper cube than control decks in regular pauper cubes (where it's already usually a tempo-control deck) or you'd have to make some odd card selection choices.
OK now I see your logic. I wonder if its possible to find a good control archetype- either from a single set or another cube- and mimic that with cards from modern sets. Interestingly post new world order are the main cards I would choose from because I started playing during zendikar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1746
http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/582
http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/2190
http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/420
The main reason is that if you restrict yourself to only modern-legal cards, you might notice a significant drop in the strength of the cards that are available for you add to get from 360 to 450 cards. This can make a cube feel a bit "diluted", for lack of a better word. That said, I think it's certainly possible to make a good 450 modern-only pauper cube, it just might take more work to balance everything out and you might end up making non-obvious changes in card choice from typical pauper cubes.
Also, with regards to modern-only pauper cubes in general, there is a non-trivial amount of pre-modern cards that can be pretty big role players in most pauper cubes (such as Pestilence), so restricting yourself to only modern-legal cards will change how your cube plays. I don't think you'll have trouble in finding decent creatures to include or in supporting aggro and midrange decks, but supporting control decks might be a bit difficult.
That seems strange to me. If every block for the last 7 or 8 years has supported all main deck styles-aggro, midrange and control- why wouldn't a cube made from these cards support the same deck styles? If built properly of course. Why would I need old cards to make control a viable archetype when it's been there all along? Of course I assume that would mean putting certain cards in and perhaps more importantly leaving some cards-or card types- out, but there should be no reason control can't be an archetype in a modern cube. Cards are only powered or unpowered in their specific context. A card most might consider weak can be very powerful in the right context. Nothing can be judged in a vacuum.
Internal block and set balancing of limited archetypes doesn't necessarily translate to cube balance. First, cubes generally only take a few specific cards from each set. The primary factor for balance within a set's limited format is how the cards in that set interact with each other, not how the cards in that set might interact with other cards from other sets. So when you mix and match cards from various sets you can't guarantee balance even though the sets you're sampling from may be internally balanced.
Second, cubes generally only take the strongest / highest impact cards from each set, and it's usually not the case that those cards represent all core archetypes equally. I haven't done this kind of analysis in a few months, but the most cubeable commons from most modern (and especially post-New World Order) sets are not control-oriented, while the average impact of midrange, tempo, and aggro cards (especially creatures) has increased. In conjunction with this, many of the highest-impact control cards such as the three black sweepers (Pestilence, Crypt Rats, Evincar's Justice) or a decent chunk of blue's non-creature section are pre-modern cards. That's the primary reason why I think supporting control with only modern cards is significantly more difficult than supporting other core archetypes - I don't think the pool of modern-legal cubeable commons is balanced across archetypes. If anything, I think you'd end up with "control" being more of a pure tempo deck in a modern pauper cube than control decks in regular pauper cubes (where it's already usually a tempo-control deck) or you'd have to make some odd card selection choices.