I think it is hard to draw a clear line on this. If a middling card with better/mostly better options should get the "no reason to cube" rating or not will depend on many factors, such as:
-does it offer something different ?(e.g. -1/-1 counter/proliferate synergies for Skinrender vs. Shriekmaw)
-is it an effect "a cube" of "a certain size" might want more of ?(this came up with Corrupt Eunuchs as the third option behind Fire Imp and Flametongue Kavu)
-will many cube designers want to consider a the card over the clearly better option if the better card might be banned for power level? (Mind Control vs. Control Magic, different Overrun-variants)
In my opinion, all of these are good reasons not to give a card a 0, if we want the ratings to be useful for designing cubes. But if we don't draw the line somewhere and only go by "power level compared to general Peasant power level", we would have to give all kinds of red and black burn and removal 2's, which once again goes against the purpose and usefulness of the project.
When it comes to actual numbers, I'm fine with different options getting the same grade even if one of them is strictly better/worse if the difference is small. I think the way to go then is to use the comments to mention this. (e.g. "You would probably choose X over this unless you want redundancy").
This reminds me an observation I have made when doing beer samplings with a flight of world class beers. Realistically, they should all get the top rating, but when you have them side by side and you detect the differences between them you want to have this reflect in your ratings. So you give your favourite 5.0, most of the others 4.75 and perhaps your least favourite gets a 4.5. But had you tried any one of them by itself in a different setting it would be a clear 5.0.
I like the "redundant" idea. Not convinced we've got a better option as far as evaluation systems go. We're always going to have issues of one kind of another.
I think we can safely assume someone who runs a 900 card cube knows to look into the redundant section for cards. We don't need to take that decision for them.
I'll come back and respond to some of these points later. However I just noticed that at some point we made an adjustment to the 'no reason to cube' description, which I've been including at the header of new posts, but hasn't been updated in the first post. Not sure if it adds much to this discussion, but thought I'd point it out, mainly in relation to some of the above discussion on cards like Vampire Interloper and Volcanic Hammer.
No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
For quick reference, the front page as at right now still has the old version: Unplayable - There isn't a reason to play these over other options, except in extreme cases where you are intentionally depowering an effect.
As someone who referenced this list heavily when I decided to come back to full on peasant after being away for a while, I think the current ranking system is fine. There are a few twos that I included over threes because my personal opinion differed from what was chosen here. This project is so huge and I applaud what bacchus2 has done with it. Also, I feel like it's a little late in the game to be discussing a different way of ranking the cards.
When I think of the current ranking system, I think of it this way. Four is absolute staples. The cards that you can't imagine ever cubing without. These are cards that you're probably going to find from peasant to powered like Jackal Pup and Young Pyromancer. Three is for the powerful cards that maybe don't make it into staple status, but you'd still be surprised to find a cube without them. For me, this would be cards like Ahn-Crop Crasher or Aether Chaser. These cards are great, but I wouldn't call them staples. Two is for the cards that help to fill out the rest. These are the cards you're looking to for redundancy and probably the cards you're most often looking at when making cuts, especially for similar effects. These are your War-Name Aspirant and Gore-House Chainwalker types. Either of these are fine options, but the next great three power two cost red guy could easily slide into one of those slots. The ones are cards that mid-size and larger lists are looking at for their redundancy. This is for cards like Kruin Striker or Fireslinger. Finally, the zeros are basically everything else. This is where the generic Goblin Piker types go.
At the end of the day, there's no perfect system, but I think what we have here is great and extremely helpful.
Let's keep it as is. The descriptions carry most of the information, even if inevitably there will be some discrepancies between a 2 that should been a 3 or 1 here and there. I don't like a whole different redundant section. First, we would need to do a lot of work to rate cards that most likely would not be played. Second, I think it is likely that such a section would remain largely unbrowsed anyway, so all that work would be to little avail.
If I were to suggest a quick fix, we could add qualifiers to cards that we feel are worth mentioning. Similar to how the Limited Resources guys gives cards grades with qualifiers "Build around C", "Sideboard B", we could have "Reduntant 3" or whatever. But we still have the issue that we don't agree on what is redundant. Mind Control and Skinrender aren't, but Volcanic Hammer is. There is a line somewhere between those cards. I don't know where it is, and I am fine with that.
Been browsing but haven't had time to put together a response.
I agree with Phitt that the difference between a 2 and 3 seems pretty fluid and I've felt that transition has lacked some definition, and I'm still not sure how to deal with that.
I'm not sure how to articulate it, but a 3 is kind of a high consideration for the type of role that the card fills. So Diregraf Ghoul is a staple; it's just a great 1-drop for black decks no matter what else your black section is doing. Vampire Lacerator is something you would likely see if you support black aggro, so is a 3. Tormented Hero is a fine alternative, and is a 2.
I don't think that translates across all types of cards though, and there are certainly some 3's that need to be dropped. Ashes to Ashes and Reckless Spite are 3's for example, but they aren't in the 'Average Peasant Cube'. I don't think there is a direct correlation between being in the average peasant cube and the classifications, but I think that says something. But I don't want to drop a whole bunch of 3's down to 2's, and have almost no 3's and 90% of cards in the 2 and 1 slot.
I think calibretto's comment here is the closest for me so far, but I feel like it needs a little more. Three is for the powerful cards that maybe don't make it into staple status, but you'd still be surprised to find a cube without them. For me, this would be cards like Ahn-Crop Crasher or Aether Chaser. These cards are great, but I wouldn't call them staples.
It probably comes down to figuring out why you'd be surprised not to find them. maybe it is just re-phrasing the current description?
3 - Strong - These are solid cards that get the job done. Their exclusion is probably an indicator that you are actively not supporting a popular deck / archetype / effect.
to...
If you support commonly played archetypes or effects, it would be surprising not to see these cards in your cube. Exclusion might be an indicator you aren't supporting that archetype / effect, or you've considered alternatives that synergise better with other cards in your cube.
I think the difference between 2 and 3 is just raw power level: a 3 would do an effect or fill a role better than a 2 would. As such, I would propose something like this:
3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype. Although these cards aren't staples, it would be surprising not to see them in most cubes.
I've looked through the 3s and it tends to be either a lot of cards that make little sense or fairly okay. I do think a decent number of cards do need to be reevaluated with the current card pool.
Changing it to "Although these cards aren't staples, it would not be surprising to see them in most cubes." gives much more leeway, though just having the first line might be best.
I think Borderland Marauder was the premier 3 power red 2-drop when we started this project 3 years (!) ago, and we've had a few more now, so it is probably not a 3. Part of the reason for figuring out whether we need to refine the classification descriptions is to then determine whether some cards need reclassifying. Same with Welkin Tern and friends, we haven't gone back and considered whether they should be reclassified.
I like 'These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.' But I do feel like a qualifier will still help identify that a 3 is not always better than a 2, and you always need to take your own environment into account. That's what I was trying to achieve by adding 'Exclusion might be an indicator you aren't supporting that archetype / effect, or you've considered alternatives that synergise better with other cards in your cube.'.
You said "...but most likely you just don't run the card because you don't like it and use something else that works just as well or better instead.'. I'm trying to articulate something like that. Everyone is going to be view it differently, but can we get closer to what people might not like? Are you just talking about not liking cards on their own merits, something like Dauthi Marauder which is powerful but people might avoid because it is non-interactive? I feel like the '...works better instead' seems pretty close to my comment about choosing something that synergises better with your cube,
To be clear, I'm not looking at the current 3's and trying to come up with a description to match how they are currently placed; there are a number which I don't think belong there, either due to newer cards superseding them, or the inherent inconsistencies in doing such a long form project with a number of collaborators.
----
So perhaps we can start with 'These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.. While it isn't essential, does anyone else want to have a go at wording a qualifier if mine aren't up to snuff? Basically the effect I'd like to achieve is 'here is why you might consider something in a lower category instead of this card'.
These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype and will be your first choice for that effect/archetype unless you have a specific reason to look for other cards (such as not liking shadow or the card lacking synergy with other cards in your cube).
I think that works, but I'm not convinced we actually need more than the first sentence.
So "specific reason" is not broad enough for you? All of the examples you gave are covered by that phrase. The examples are just there to illustrate the point.
As for "power level of a modern retail limited format", I don't think that's useful at all here. You already named some exceptions yourself, it's not hard to find more.
Phitt, I'm on the 'good aggro cards at 3' train, though I'd argue that Diregraf Ghoul is probably good enough in many black decks that it probably makes sense at 4. On your pick order comment, I don't think high in a pick order is synonymous to staple though. The classifications are about whether you should consider them for your cube, not where they sit in a pick order. (We'll pick up groupings of cards for reclassification soon).
I disagree with reducing it down to '1 is bad, 4 is best'. I think the extra words are important (hence prompting this discussion on classification vs simply ranking). Some of the niche cards can be powerful in the right environment; you just need to surround them with the right cards. I know you weren't saying we reduce it to this, but it's the thing I've been trying to avoid all along.
-----
I think it's time to move on. I've gone with the simple version for the '3' category at this point. I also changed 'good' to 'fine' under Playable to avoid the solid / strong / good confusion.
4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good. 3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype. 2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds). 1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect. No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
Maybe we should expand this rating to be more accurate.
5 - Super Duper Good - This card is super duper good. 4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good. 3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype. 2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds). 1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect. No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
I don't think that is necessary. While there is a power difference between Sol Ring and Eternal Witness, it's not like there is a massive abundance of cards in that category that separating them out makes a lot of sense.
I don't think that is necessary. While there is a power difference between Sol Ring and Eternal Witness, it's not like there is a massive abundance of cards in that category that separating them out makes a lot of sense.
Ok then maybe
4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good. 3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype. 2.5 - Inbetweener - Not as good as a 3, but definitely better than a 3. 2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds). 1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect. No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
I'm comfortable keeping it at the current number of classifications.
Let's test out the minor modifications by moving on to adding Ixalan cards. Starting with black.
4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good. 3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype. 2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds). 1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect. No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
Kitesail Freebooter - 1 Description - If you can take a card and chip in for evasive damage if the sky is clear, it's a pretty good deal. Less good in peasant than it might be in rare cubes or constructed formats, as the density of noncreature spells in decks will be lower. Anchors - Supports -
Seekers' Squire - 1 Description - Either mode is ok, but doesn't really add a lot to your cube. It does provide minor support for +1/+1 counters and graveyard matters themes. Anchors - Supports -
Wanted Scoundrels - 1 Description - I think some people tested this? My thoughts: 4/3 for 2 is obviously an excellent rate and is great if this doesn't die. However, 3 toughness won't be too hard to take down in combat, and your opponent might be able to cast removal and follow up with another spell, providing them tempo advantage. Even if you get in for 8 damage, if you let your opponent accelerate by 2 mana on turns 4-5, it probably lets them recover. You might give it more consideration if you have a cube light on removal and heavy on combat tricks, and it weirdly gets better if you cube more exile / lock down removal. Anchors - Supports -
Skulduggery - 2 Description - 1 mana is nice for a combat trick. The impact isn't huge but is likely to turn around enough combats to be worthwhile. (Steal Strength currently at 1, drop to no reason to cube). Anchors - Supports -
Walk the Plank - 2 Description - It has among the highest number of targets for a 2 removal spell. Balanced by being sorcery speed and needing to commit to black, though for some these will be features you are looking for in your removal suite rather than drawbacks. Anchors - Supports -
Heartless Pillage - 1 Description - Of the '3 mana, opponent discards 2' options, it doesn't really add much. You might swap it for similar options if you want to strongly signal aggro control (given the raid trigger), but it is probably stretching to consider it incidental support for an artifact matters theme. Anchors - Supports -
Blight Keeper - It's an evasive 1-drop, but there isn't really a reason to cube it.
Skittering Heartstopper - Having to pay for the deathtouch is much worse downside than the marginal toughness gain when compared to other 1-drop alternatives.
Vicious Conquistador - It looks like a 2-powered 1-drop, but not being able to take out opposing 2-toughness creatures makes it pretty bad.
Desperate Castaways - The upside (stats for cost) isn't high enough compared to the hoop you have to jump through. Shambling Ghoul might not be able to block the turn it comes down, but would almost always be better than this.
Dire Fleet Hoarder - You won't always be able to have this die when you want. It might be fine on turn 2 when you can threaten to trade and accelerate into something, but it is going to be too inconsistent and later in the game is probably just a bad 2-drop.
Deadeye Tormenter - Most of the time it will be worse than Mardu Skullhunter.
Ruthless Knave - It has potential, but it will be difficult to realise. The most likely scenario is activating when something is about to die and trying to draw cards, but it just doesn't seem efficient enough to consider.
Skymarch Bloodletter - Looks fair… a little too fair. Maybe you could stretch and include it to support a life gain matters theme, but there doesn't seem a reason to cube it.
Fathom Fleet Cutthroat - The best case is alongside a pinger of some sort, but outside that you are likely relying on running one of your creatures into theirs. Too inconsistent.
March of the Drowned - There isn't really the density of cube worthy Pirates to consider it; play Ghoulcaller's Chant instead.
Costly Plunder - It's instant speed, but the casting is very situational, restricted to when one of your creatures / artifacts is about the get binned, and you have the 2 man spare. If you are casting it at other times, you are probably throwing resources away.
Grim Captain's Call - It really has to hit 2 targets consistently to be at least acceptable, and it just isn't going to happen in cube.
Raider's Wake - Torment of Scarabs fills this type of role a lot better. It can enable itself, but if you don't have any attacks it is pretty bad.
Contract Killing - Only if depowering your removal, and even then this is pretty low for the average peasant cube. If you are, this does provide support for artifact matters though, if you care about that.
Generally looks right... I think I'm closer to playing Ruthless Knave than Deadeye Tormentor, but neither is worth more than a 1 and I'd probably just put both at 0.
Raiders' Wake seems pretty difficult to use effectively. Maybe in aggro-control you could make use of it, but even that seems like a stretch as it's so abysmal when behind. Maybe a 1 since it could theoretically do a ton of work, but even that's optimistic.
-does it offer something different ?(e.g. -1/-1 counter/proliferate synergies for Skinrender vs. Shriekmaw)
-is it an effect "a cube" of "a certain size" might want more of ?(this came up with Corrupt Eunuchs as the third option behind Fire Imp and Flametongue Kavu)
-will many cube designers want to consider a the card over the clearly better option if the better card might be banned for power level? (Mind Control vs. Control Magic, different Overrun-variants)
In my opinion, all of these are good reasons not to give a card a 0, if we want the ratings to be useful for designing cubes. But if we don't draw the line somewhere and only go by "power level compared to general Peasant power level", we would have to give all kinds of red and black burn and removal 2's, which once again goes against the purpose and usefulness of the project.
When it comes to actual numbers, I'm fine with different options getting the same grade even if one of them is strictly better/worse if the difference is small. I think the way to go then is to use the comments to mention this. (e.g. "You would probably choose X over this unless you want redundancy").
This reminds me an observation I have made when doing beer samplings with a flight of world class beers. Realistically, they should all get the top rating, but when you have them side by side and you detect the differences between them you want to have this reflect in your ratings. So you give your favourite 5.0, most of the others 4.75 and perhaps your least favourite gets a 4.5. But had you tried any one of them by itself in a different setting it would be a clear 5.0.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
5.0
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
For quick reference, the front page as at right now still has the old version:
Unplayable - There isn't a reason to play these over other options, except in extreme cases where you are intentionally depowering an effect.
When I think of the current ranking system, I think of it this way. Four is absolute staples. The cards that you can't imagine ever cubing without. These are cards that you're probably going to find from peasant to powered like Jackal Pup and Young Pyromancer. Three is for the powerful cards that maybe don't make it into staple status, but you'd still be surprised to find a cube without them. For me, this would be cards like Ahn-Crop Crasher or Aether Chaser. These cards are great, but I wouldn't call them staples. Two is for the cards that help to fill out the rest. These are the cards you're looking to for redundancy and probably the cards you're most often looking at when making cuts, especially for similar effects. These are your War-Name Aspirant and Gore-House Chainwalker types. Either of these are fine options, but the next great three power two cost red guy could easily slide into one of those slots. The ones are cards that mid-size and larger lists are looking at for their redundancy. This is for cards like Kruin Striker or Fireslinger. Finally, the zeros are basically everything else. This is where the generic Goblin Piker types go.
At the end of the day, there's no perfect system, but I think what we have here is great and extremely helpful.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
If I were to suggest a quick fix, we could add qualifiers to cards that we feel are worth mentioning. Similar to how the Limited Resources guys gives cards grades with qualifiers "Build around C", "Sideboard B", we could have "Reduntant 3" or whatever. But we still have the issue that we don't agree on what is redundant. Mind Control and Skinrender aren't, but Volcanic Hammer is. There is a line somewhere between those cards. I don't know where it is, and I am fine with that.
Me too.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
I agree with Phitt that the difference between a 2 and 3 seems pretty fluid and I've felt that transition has lacked some definition, and I'm still not sure how to deal with that.
I'm not sure how to articulate it, but a 3 is kind of a high consideration for the type of role that the card fills. So Diregraf Ghoul is a staple; it's just a great 1-drop for black decks no matter what else your black section is doing. Vampire Lacerator is something you would likely see if you support black aggro, so is a 3. Tormented Hero is a fine alternative, and is a 2.
I don't think that translates across all types of cards though, and there are certainly some 3's that need to be dropped. Ashes to Ashes and Reckless Spite are 3's for example, but they aren't in the 'Average Peasant Cube'. I don't think there is a direct correlation between being in the average peasant cube and the classifications, but I think that says something. But I don't want to drop a whole bunch of 3's down to 2's, and have almost no 3's and 90% of cards in the 2 and 1 slot.
I think calibretto's comment here is the closest for me so far, but I feel like it needs a little more.
Three is for the powerful cards that maybe don't make it into staple status, but you'd still be surprised to find a cube without them. For me, this would be cards like Ahn-Crop Crasher or Aether Chaser. These cards are great, but I wouldn't call them staples.
It probably comes down to figuring out why you'd be surprised not to find them. maybe it is just re-phrasing the current description?
3 - Strong - These are solid cards that get the job done. Their exclusion is probably an indicator that you are actively not supporting a popular deck / archetype / effect.
to...
If you support commonly played archetypes or effects, it would be surprising not to see these cards in your cube. Exclusion might be an indicator you aren't supporting that archetype / effect, or you've considered alternatives that synergise better with other cards in your cube.
3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype. Although these cards aren't staples, it would be surprising not to see them in most cubes.
Changing it to "Although these cards aren't staples, it would not be surprising to see them in most cubes." gives much more leeway, though just having the first line might be best.
I like 'These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.' But I do feel like a qualifier will still help identify that a 3 is not always better than a 2, and you always need to take your own environment into account. That's what I was trying to achieve by adding 'Exclusion might be an indicator you aren't supporting that archetype / effect, or you've considered alternatives that synergise better with other cards in your cube.'.
You said "...but most likely you just don't run the card because you don't like it and use something else that works just as well or better instead.'. I'm trying to articulate something like that. Everyone is going to be view it differently, but can we get closer to what people might not like? Are you just talking about not liking cards on their own merits, something like Dauthi Marauder which is powerful but people might avoid because it is non-interactive? I feel like the '...works better instead' seems pretty close to my comment about choosing something that synergises better with your cube,
To be clear, I'm not looking at the current 3's and trying to come up with a description to match how they are currently placed; there are a number which I don't think belong there, either due to newer cards superseding them, or the inherent inconsistencies in doing such a long form project with a number of collaborators.
----
So perhaps we can start with 'These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.. While it isn't essential, does anyone else want to have a go at wording a qualifier if mine aren't up to snuff? Basically the effect I'd like to achieve is 'here is why you might consider something in a lower category instead of this card'.
I think that works, but I'm not convinced we actually need more than the first sentence.
As for "power level of a modern retail limited format", I don't think that's useful at all here. You already named some exceptions yourself, it's not hard to find more.
I disagree with reducing it down to '1 is bad, 4 is best'. I think the extra words are important (hence prompting this discussion on classification vs simply ranking). Some of the niche cards can be powerful in the right environment; you just need to surround them with the right cards. I know you weren't saying we reduce it to this, but it's the thing I've been trying to avoid all along.
-----
I think it's time to move on. I've gone with the simple version for the '3' category at this point. I also changed 'good' to 'fine' under Playable to avoid the solid / strong / good confusion.
4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good.
3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.
2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds).
1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect.
No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
5 - Super Duper Good - This card is super duper good.
4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good.
3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.
2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds).
1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect.
No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good.
3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.
2.5 - Inbetweener - Not as good as a 3, but definitely better than a 3.
2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds).
1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect.
No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
Let's test out the minor modifications by moving on to adding Ixalan cards. Starting with black.
4 - Staple - Cards with enough base power that your cube is less powerful from their omission. They are cards that are likely to never rotate out of your cube unless you ban them for being too good.
3 - Strong - These cards are among the top cards at providing an important effect and/or supporting a popular archetype.
2 - Playable - These are fine cards, but they are either interchangeable (e.g. lots of removal, aggressive red 2-drops) or are build-around cards that need a little support to be good (Favorable Winds).
1 - Niche - These cards aren't usually considered great, but might be included to support some obscure archetypes, specific interactions, or if going deep on a particular type of deck / archetype / effect.
No reason to cube - There isn't a reason to cube these over options. You might find some perfectly 'playable' cards here, but there is little reason to put them into your cube in the first place unless you are intentionally depowering an effect.
Kitesail Freebooter - 1
Description - If you can take a card and chip in for evasive damage if the sky is clear, it's a pretty good deal. Less good in peasant than it might be in rare cubes or constructed formats, as the density of noncreature spells in decks will be lower.
Anchors -
Supports -
Seekers' Squire - 1
Description - Either mode is ok, but doesn't really add a lot to your cube. It does provide minor support for +1/+1 counters and graveyard matters themes.
Anchors -
Supports -
Wanted Scoundrels - 1
Description - I think some people tested this? My thoughts: 4/3 for 2 is obviously an excellent rate and is great if this doesn't die. However, 3 toughness won't be too hard to take down in combat, and your opponent might be able to cast removal and follow up with another spell, providing them tempo advantage. Even if you get in for 8 damage, if you let your opponent accelerate by 2 mana on turns 4-5, it probably lets them recover. You might give it more consideration if you have a cube light on removal and heavy on combat tricks, and it weirdly gets better if you cube more exile / lock down removal.
Anchors -
Supports -
Skulduggery - 2
Description - 1 mana is nice for a combat trick. The impact isn't huge but is likely to turn around enough combats to be worthwhile. (Steal Strength currently at 1, drop to no reason to cube).
Anchors -
Supports -
Walk the Plank - 2
Description - It has among the highest number of targets for a 2 removal spell. Balanced by being sorcery speed and needing to commit to black, though for some these will be features you are looking for in your removal suite rather than drawbacks.
Anchors -
Supports -
Heartless Pillage - 1
Description - Of the '3 mana, opponent discards 2' options, it doesn't really add much. You might swap it for similar options if you want to strongly signal aggro control (given the raid trigger), but it is probably stretching to consider it incidental support for an artifact matters theme.
Anchors -
Supports -
I can't imagine Deadeye Tormentor being playable; Mardu Skullhunter is effectively a 2 mana version of it.
Raiders' Wake seems pretty difficult to use effectively. Maybe in aggro-control you could make use of it, but even that seems like a stretch as it's so abysmal when behind. Maybe a 1 since it could theoretically do a ton of work, but even that's optimistic.