I don't think anyone seriously believes Salt is a troll. He's just a career contrarian trying to spread The Truth to the rest of us plebs.
I really hope he doesn't get banned, this posts are the second funniest on this board.
I was banned for a week but I'm back now.
I've taken the OP's question and my own argument to its logical conclusion and decided to just start putting in whatever card I wanted into my cube, common or not.
It's not really about rarity, it's about power level.
I like both the power-level and the budget of pauper/peasant. I decided on peasant over pauper since it (in my opinion) gives access to more "interesting" cards, particularly when looking at sets post new-world-order.
I have decided to break rarity for several cards, since I see no reason not to put a card in my cube if I believe adding the card will increase the amount of fun I will have with the cube. However, I am careful with the powerlevel, and would never add a card that would be a clear first pick over most of my cube for example.
My main argument to remain mostly within the bounds of peasant is to have the community to discuss with. Card evaluation is hard as hell, and I think it would be very challenging to build a good and balanced cube on your own, "in the wild", without having some sort of framework.
It's not really about rarity, it's about power level.
I have been interested in a sort of... perfectly balanced cube, where every card is as close as possible in power level. Clearly this is impractical with preexisting magic cards for numerous reasons (including the fact that I'd be excluding even interesting designs that make playing the game memorable), but you could probably set up a "worst card" and "best card" standard for your cube and stick cards of every rarity in between.
So like... Cloudgoat ranger could be the upper bound of power and something like... coldsteel heart or ... blood ogre could be your lower bound. Honestly, this should open you up to a more diverse cardpool which helps more niche archetypes, balances aggro and control, etc.
It's not really about rarity, it's about power level.
I have been interested in a sort of... perfectly balanced cube, where every card is as close as possible in power level. Clearly this is impractical with preexisting magic cards for numerous reasons (including the fact that I'd be excluding even interesting designs that make playing the game memorable), but you could probably set up a "worst card" and "best card" standard for your cube and stick cards of every rarity in between.
So like... Cloudgoat ranger could be the upper bound of power and something like... coldsteel heart or ... blood ogre could be your lower bound. Honestly, this should open you up to a more diverse cardpool which helps more niche archetypes, balances aggro and control, etc.
</blockquote>
Certain things just don't exist in Pauper, or exist in limited quantities or require jumping through hoops.
For example, the only way to Control Magic a creature in Pauper is to play a card like Ray of Command and to then give it phasing with Vanishing.
Wraths don't exist in Pauper really.
There aren't any big mana creatures that are worth it beyond Ulamog's Crusher.
Meanwhile cards like Mulldrifter and Pestilence are pretty much playable in a powered Vintage cube environment.
So dropping rarity restrictions should allow you to have a more balanced environment.
That does not take into account ecological/contextual effects on power level, though. For instance, Library of Alexandria is one crazy card in powered cubes. It is still very good in Peasant. However, when the effective power level of the plays you can make is more or less capped by what is allowed at this rarity, cards like Library or Mulldrifter can only accrue so much effective value per draw. There are few haymakers where every single one you can play requires either a counterspell or a swift comparable play from the opponent or the game is forfeit.
Of course, the point about Wraths, etc. is valid to an extent. Then again, Wizards hardly builds their limited environments around the effects they only make available at higher rarities, either. Thus, they are generally optional, or the comparable cards at lower rarities are able to deal with the the threats at those rarities most of the time (red and black sweepers versus tokens, for instance). Of course the restriction is artificial to an extent - any such restriction is, including only using singleton copies (especially if you accept functionally identical cards). However, excluding rares generally speaking extracts the sort of core limited environment experience from sets since set drafting needs to be built primarily around un/commons anyway, given the limited availability of rares and up in packs.
That does not take into account ecological/contextual effects on power level, though. For instance, Library of Alexandria is one crazy card in powered cubes. It is still very good in Peasant. However, when the effective power level of the plays you can make is more or less capped by what is allowed at this rarity, cards like Library or Mulldrifter can only accrue so much effective value per draw. There are few haymakers where every single one you can play requires either a counterspell or a swift comparable play from the opponent or the game is forfeit.
Of course, the point about Wraths, etc. is valid to an extent. Then again, Wizards hardly builds their limited environments around the effects they only make available at higher rarities, either. Thus, they are generally optional, or the comparable cards at lower rarities are able to deal with the the threats at those rarities most of the time (red and black sweepers versus tokens, for instance). Of course the restriction is artificial to an extent - any such restriction is, including only using singleton copies (especially if you accept functionally identical cards). However, excluding rares generally speaking extracts the sort of core limited environment experience from sets since set drafting needs to be built primarily around un/commons anyway, given the limited availability of rares and up in packs.
Mulldrifter is great in any environment.
Repeatable board wipes are good in any environment short of Cheat Card -> Blightsteel Colossus.
The point I was trying to make is that Artisan of Kozilek or Shahrazad or Pox or Arcbound Overseer are more reasonable in a mostly Pauper environment than Pestilence, Sprout Swarm, Mulldrifter, etc. are.
If you have mostly Pauper creatures and removal, a lot of cards are going to be just fine in that environment and are going to scale with power level.
Some cards are basically just bad commons anyways. Is Floral Spuzzem a good card? Eh, not really. Is it a common? No. Would it be fine alongside Kor Skyfisher, Vault Skirge, Cuombajj Witches, or Delver of Secrets as a neat anti-artifact creature? Absolutely.
Well, in my BadCardsCube I still run wrath effects, they just cost 6 or 7. I'm sure that our format could handle something like Fated Retribution if it can handle sulfurous blast.
Well, in my BadCardsCube I still run wrath effects, they just cost 6 or 7. I'm sure that our format could handle something like Fated Retribution if it can handle sulfurous blast.
I mean, those cards are fine.
I've seen people raise a fuss over cards costing a mana or two more than other, better options. Yeah, there are better options, but I'd still pay 5 mana for Armageddon, or 3 for Rancor, or whatever.
Ghostfire is basically the same card as Lightning Bolt. Same with those wraths you listed.
After playing Magic for a year, I've learned that Magic players are incapable of nuance. A card is either a, "good card" or, "unplayable trash" with no in between.
A nuanced analysis would never say that Ghostfire and Lightning Bolt are basically the same card. Similar in function, sure, but the difference between holding up one mana and three is pretty huge - often that's the difference between casting only one spell or two. Do you consider this type of stubborn, sweeping over-generalization to be a nuanced grasp of MTG?
You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.
But it's not worth breaking rarity for me personally because I use the rarity restriction as a structural barrier - it keeps me from losing control. If I made an exception, it could lead to other exceptions, and with each one, the rule loses more and more meaning until I find that I'm just a weird, underpowered mish-mash of a cube.
After playing Magic for a year, I've learned that Magic players are incapable of nuance. A card is either a, "good card" or, "unplayable trash" with no in between.
A nuanced analysis would never say that Ghostfire and Lightning Bolt are basically the same card. Similar in function, sure, but the difference between holding up one mana and three is pretty huge - often that's the difference between casting only one spell or two. Do you consider this type of stubborn, sweeping over-generalization to be a nuanced grasp of MTG?
You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.
But it's not worth breaking rarity for me personally because I use the rarity restriction as a structural barrier - it keeps me from losing control. If I made an exception, it could lead to other exceptions, and with each one, the rule loses more and more meaning until I find that I'm just a weird, underpowered mish-mash of a cube.
The difference between holding up 1 mana and 3 is huge in constructed Pauper.
In limited Pauper not so much. By the time there is a creature you want to remove with it you'll have 3 mana.
After playing Magic for a year, I've learned that Magic players are incapable of nuance. A card is either a, "good card" or, "unplayable trash" with no in between.
A nuanced analysis would never say that Ghostfire and Lightning Bolt are basically the same card. Similar in function, sure, but the difference between holding up one mana and three is pretty huge - often that's the difference between casting only one spell or two. Do you consider this type of stubborn, sweeping over-generalization to be a nuanced grasp of MTG?
You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.
But it's not worth breaking rarity for me personally because I use the rarity restriction as a structural barrier - it keeps me from losing control. If I made an exception, it could lead to other exceptions, and with each one, the rule loses more and more meaning until I find that I'm just a weird, underpowered mish-mash of a cube.
The difference between holding up 1 mana and 3 is huge in constructed Pauper.
In limited Pauper not so much. By the time there is a creature you want to remove with it you'll have 3 mana.
But will you be able to play your removal and drop a threat of your own? Because that's what makes one mana so much more flexible than three. If I have Lightning Bolt and a two-drop, I can cast both of them for the same cost as just Ghostfire. In one situation, I have an advantage; in the other, I've negated one turn for each of us and kept us at parity.
And this is true for both constructed and limited.
After playing Magic for a year, I've learned that Magic players are incapable of nuance. A card is either a, "good card" or, "unplayable trash" with no in between.
A nuanced analysis would never say that Ghostfire and Lightning Bolt are basically the same card. Similar in function, sure, but the difference between holding up one mana and three is pretty huge - often that's the difference between casting only one spell or two. Do you consider this type of stubborn, sweeping over-generalization to be a nuanced grasp of MTG?
You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.
But it's not worth breaking rarity for me personally because I use the rarity restriction as a structural barrier - it keeps me from losing control. If I made an exception, it could lead to other exceptions, and with each one, the rule loses more and more meaning until I find that I'm just a weird, underpowered mish-mash of a cube.
The difference between holding up 1 mana and 3 is huge in constructed Pauper.
In limited Pauper not so much. By the time there is a creature you want to remove with it you'll have 3 mana.
But will you be able to play your removal and drop a threat of your own? Because that's what makes one mana so much more flexible than three. If I have Lightning Bolt and a two-drop, I can cast both of them for the same cost as just Ghostfire. In one situation, I have an advantage; in the other, I've negated one turn for each of us and kept us at parity.
And this is true for both constructed and limited.
Sure, but that won't matter for one of two reasons:
1.) The board stalls and a game of fun, fair, interactive Magic begins and all you got was an extra swing in. Eh. A turn later your opponent puts a 1/3 into play and that was that.
Or:
2.) Someone slams down some obnoxious card like Pestilence or Mulldrifter or blows you out with Prismatic Strands and it doesn't matter that you paid 1 mana for bolt instead of 3.
You can absolutely create a cube that plays like a peasant or even pauper cube while using rares and mythics. But it would be much harder to balance since almost no one has a cube like that and you'd have to test all the cards yourself. And you have no one to talk to and discuss with. To me that's part of the fun.
I have a cube like that, and I'm a vocal part of the cube community here on MTGS, but I will say that you are right. I don't really belong in the main cube forum, and I don't really belong on the pauper/peasant side either. My voice is always a voice from the corner. But I do keep talking.
My cube is glorious and I love it. It's a massive, low power, semi-budget cube that excludes cards that are overpowered for no reason, are unfun, or are absurdly expensive (even if I own them). Thus things like my Karn Liberated sit out on all three counts.
The power level means that anything that was really good in its limited environment can usually cross over and do good work in my cube, and the size means that it's okay for some weaker nostalgia cards to stay put. I'm still playing Bösium Strip, and it still works in some decks. With a cube that big, the main factor for any card is working in a number of different kinds of decks, especially different archetypes. (Okay, Bösium Strip doesn't pass that test, but I did say it was a weaker nostalgia card.)
It also helps that I co-manage the cube with my sister. I'm plugged into the community, so I know the cards that everybody says are great-- but she isn't plugged in, so her evaluations are more organic. That push-and-pull is good for producing a dynamic cube environment (although I just don't understand why she won't let me cut Foul Imp).
I'm not a rich person, and I can't just order expensive cards like Prismatic Vista because I want them. Everyone in the main cube forum just assumes that anybody can afford any given card. I understand why they do that: it helps make unbiased evaluations. Still, it leaves people like me, and I assume many others in the dust.
I highly recommend building a cube out of whatever cards you have lying around (rares and mythics included). You can then start to preen from there. It has produced a truly lush and unique environment for us over time, and I enjoy it much more than the traditional cubes I've played. If anybody is ever interested in talking about a low-power list, I'm always happy to compare notes. I have a lot of opinions, and a lot of card suggestions. Army Ants!
--------------
I never considered building peasant. Why would I impose such a random stricture? But now that I'm looking to build a second cube, I'm reconsidering.
I am moving to the UK for a two year graduate program, and I can't take my 1800 card cube with me. I'll be leaving it with my sister. As such, I want to build something small enough and cheap enough that I can easily bring it. I have no interest in the artificial requirement to exclude all rares and mythics, but I don't want to take any cards that I would be unhappy to see destroyed. Thus I can really see the appeal of a C/U cube. I don't want to buy anything at all for the new cube (except maybe a full cycle of trilands), and the chaff rares that I have lying around are really a random array. I see myself playing almost all commons and uncommons, and the archives here are a really useful resource.
In the end, the true appeal of peasant/pauper is that it is established and played while remaining dirt cheap. I don't see why anybody would build a peasant cube and put an overpriced, overpowered card like Mana Drain in, but I guess people do that. I also never saw the point of putting an auto-take card like Ancestral Recall in any cube, but people love it, so go figure.
Dirt cheap + strong existing community are compelling reasons. Still, I recommend the low-power, rares-included model to anyone. The only drawback is the lack of meaningful discussion. And... well I'm here!
You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.
Moving back to actual Peasant, this is an interesting point. Are there any wraths you could see downgrading for something like a Masters set? Maybe something like Hour of Devastation without any of the extra text? It still feels rare though. Maybe 3RR for 4 damage. Maybe a slow rolling wrath like a saga could work at uncommon. What about a downgrade for Planar Collapse (or a functional reprint without regeneration text)? Probably not even good enough for peasant. I could see a Fall of the Thran style temporary wrath working at uncommon.
Forced March might be just at the sweet spot for power level. It could take the Infest slot in a Modern Horizons limited environment. But triple black at uncommon...
You can absolutely create a cube that plays like a peasant or even pauper cube while using rares and mythics. But it would be much harder to balance since almost no one has a cube like that and you'd have to test all the cards yourself. And you have no one to talk to and discuss with. To me that's part of the fun.
I have a cube like that, and I'm a vocal part of the cube community here on MTGS, but I will say that you are right. I don't really belong in the main cube forum, and I don't really belong on the pauper/peasant side either. My voice is always a voice from the corner. But I do keep talking.
My cube is glorious and I love it. It's a massive, low power, semi-budget cube that excludes cards that are overpowered for no reason, are unfun, or are absurdly expensive (even if I own them). Thus things like my Karn Liberated sit out on all three counts.
The power level means that anything that was really good in its limited environment can usually cross over and do good work in my cube, and the size means that it's okay for some weaker nostalgia cards to stay put. I'm still playing Bösium Strip, and it still works in some decks. With a cube that big, the main factor for any card is working in a number of different kinds of decks, especially different archetypes. (Okay, Bösium Strip doesn't pass that test, but I did say it was a weaker nostalgia card.)
It also helps that I co-manage the cube with my sister. I'm plugged into the community, so I know the cards that everybody says are great-- but she isn't plugged in, so her evaluations are more organic. That push-and-pull is good for producing a dynamic cube environment (although I just don't understand why she won't let me cut Foul Imp).
I'm not a rich person, and I can't just order expensive cards like Prismatic Vista because I want them. Everyone in the main cube forum just assumes that anybody can afford any given card. I understand why they do that: it helps make unbiased evaluations. Still, it leaves people like me, and I assume many others in the dust.
I highly recommend building a cube out of whatever cards you have lying around (rares and mythics included). You can then start to preen from there. It has produced a truly lush and unique environment for us over time, and I enjoy it much more than the traditional cubes I've played. If anybody is ever interested in talking about a low-power list, I'm always happy to compare notes. I have a lot of opinions, and a lot of card suggestions. Army Ants!
--------------
I never considered building peasant. Why would I impose such a random stricture? But now that I'm looking to build a second cube, I'm reconsidering.
I am moving to the UK for a two year graduate program, and I can't take my 1800 card cube with me. I'll be leaving it with my sister. As such, I want to build something small enough and cheap enough that I can easily bring it. I have no interest in the artificial requirement to exclude all rares and mythics, but I don't want to take any cards that I would be unhappy to see destroyed. Thus I can really see the appeal of a C/U cube. I don't want to buy anything at all for the new cube (except maybe a full cycle of trilands), and the chaff rares that I have lying around are really a random array. I see myself playing almost all commons and uncommons, and the archives here are a really useful resource.
In the end, the true appeal of peasant/pauper is that it is established and played while remaining dirt cheap. I don't see why anybody would build a peasant cube and put an overpriced, overpowered card like Mana Drain in, but I guess people do that. I also never saw the point of putting an auto-take card like Ancestral Recall in any cube, but people love it, so go figure.
Dirt cheap + strong existing community are compelling reasons. Still, I recommend the low-power, rares-included model to anyone. The only drawback is the lack of meaningful discussion. And... well I'm here!
You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.
Moving back to actual Peasant, this is an interesting point. Are there any wraths you could see downgrading for something like a Masters set? Maybe something like Hour of Devastation without any of the extra text? It still feels rare though. Maybe 3RR for 4 damage. Maybe a slow rolling wrath like a saga could work at uncommon. What about a downgrade for Planar Collapse (or a functional reprint without regeneration text)? Probably not even good enough for peasant. I could see a Fall of the Thran style temporary wrath working at uncommon.
Forced March might be just at the sweet spot for power level. It could take the Infest slot in a Modern Horizons limited environment. But triple black at uncommon...
We share cube philosophies. Can you link me to your cube? Mine is in my signature. I can't view signatures on my Windows Phone. I want to trade some drafts over cubetutor.
But yeah, I definitely agree. When I put Genju of the Realm and Child of Alara into my otherwise Pauper cube people freaked out. They turned out to be fine.
A lot of cards scale with power level and/or are symmetrical so I don't really see a problem with say, including Pox in a cube alongside Benalish Hero and Kjeldoran Skycaptain.
As far as expensive cards go, there are always counterfeit cards or printing out proxies. You don't have to pay $200 for Shahrazad if you don't want to.
I really hope he doesn't get banned, this posts are the second funniest on this board.
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
I was banned for a week but I'm back now.
I've taken the OP's question and my own argument to its logical conclusion and decided to just start putting in whatever card I wanted into my cube, common or not.
It's not really about rarity, it's about power level.
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.
I have decided to break rarity for several cards, since I see no reason not to put a card in my cube if I believe adding the card will increase the amount of fun I will have with the cube. However, I am careful with the powerlevel, and would never add a card that would be a clear first pick over most of my cube for example.
My main argument to remain mostly within the bounds of peasant is to have the community to discuss with. Card evaluation is hard as hell, and I think it would be very challenging to build a good and balanced cube on your own, "in the wild", without having some sort of framework.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
I have been interested in a sort of... perfectly balanced cube, where every card is as close as possible in power level. Clearly this is impractical with preexisting magic cards for numerous reasons (including the fact that I'd be excluding even interesting designs that make playing the game memorable), but you could probably set up a "worst card" and "best card" standard for your cube and stick cards of every rarity in between.
So like... Cloudgoat ranger could be the upper bound of power and something like... coldsteel heart or ... blood ogre could be your lower bound. Honestly, this should open you up to a more diverse cardpool which helps more niche archetypes, balances aggro and control, etc.
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
Certain things just don't exist in Pauper, or exist in limited quantities or require jumping through hoops.
For example, the only way to Control Magic a creature in Pauper is to play a card like Ray of Command and to then give it phasing with Vanishing.
Wraths don't exist in Pauper really.
There aren't any big mana creatures that are worth it beyond Ulamog's Crusher.
Meanwhile cards like Mulldrifter and Pestilence are pretty much playable in a powered Vintage cube environment.
So dropping rarity restrictions should allow you to have a more balanced environment.
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.
Of course, the point about Wraths, etc. is valid to an extent. Then again, Wizards hardly builds their limited environments around the effects they only make available at higher rarities, either. Thus, they are generally optional, or the comparable cards at lower rarities are able to deal with the the threats at those rarities most of the time (red and black sweepers versus tokens, for instance). Of course the restriction is artificial to an extent - any such restriction is, including only using singleton copies (especially if you accept functionally identical cards). However, excluding rares generally speaking extracts the sort of core limited environment experience from sets since set drafting needs to be built primarily around un/commons anyway, given the limited availability of rares and up in packs.
Mulldrifter is great in any environment.
Repeatable board wipes are good in any environment short of Cheat Card -> Blightsteel Colossus.
The point I was trying to make is that Artisan of Kozilek or Shahrazad or Pox or Arcbound Overseer are more reasonable in a mostly Pauper environment than Pestilence, Sprout Swarm, Mulldrifter, etc. are.
If you have mostly Pauper creatures and removal, a lot of cards are going to be just fine in that environment and are going to scale with power level.
Some cards are basically just bad commons anyways. Is Floral Spuzzem a good card? Eh, not really. Is it a common? No. Would it be fine alongside Kor Skyfisher, Vault Skirge, Cuombajj Witches, or Delver of Secrets as a neat anti-artifact creature? Absolutely.
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.
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
I mean, those cards are fine.
I've seen people raise a fuss over cards costing a mana or two more than other, better options. Yeah, there are better options, but I'd still pay 5 mana for Armageddon, or 3 for Rancor, or whatever.
Ghostfire is basically the same card as Lightning Bolt. Same with those wraths you listed.
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.
I seem to recall someone accusing others of being incapable of nuance. A nuanced analysis would never say that Ghostfire and Lightning Bolt are basically the same card. Similar in function, sure, but the difference between holding up one mana and three is pretty huge - often that's the difference between casting only one spell or two. Do you consider this type of stubborn, sweeping over-generalization to be a nuanced grasp of MTG?
You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.
But it's not worth breaking rarity for me personally because I use the rarity restriction as a structural barrier - it keeps me from losing control. If I made an exception, it could lead to other exceptions, and with each one, the rule loses more and more meaning until I find that I'm just a weird, underpowered mish-mash of a cube.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
The difference between holding up 1 mana and 3 is huge in constructed Pauper.
In limited Pauper not so much. By the time there is a creature you want to remove with it you'll have 3 mana.
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.
And this is true for both constructed and limited.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Sure, but that won't matter for one of two reasons:
1.) The board stalls and a game of fun, fair, interactive Magic begins and all you got was an extra swing in. Eh. A turn later your opponent puts a 1/3 into play and that was that.
Or:
2.) Someone slams down some obnoxious card like Pestilence or Mulldrifter or blows you out with Prismatic Strands and it doesn't matter that you paid 1 mana for bolt instead of 3.
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.
I have a cube like that, and I'm a vocal part of the cube community here on MTGS, but I will say that you are right. I don't really belong in the main cube forum, and I don't really belong on the pauper/peasant side either. My voice is always a voice from the corner. But I do keep talking.
My cube is glorious and I love it. It's a massive, low power, semi-budget cube that excludes cards that are overpowered for no reason, are unfun, or are absurdly expensive (even if I own them). Thus things like my Karn Liberated sit out on all three counts.
The power level means that anything that was really good in its limited environment can usually cross over and do good work in my cube, and the size means that it's okay for some weaker nostalgia cards to stay put. I'm still playing Bösium Strip, and it still works in some decks. With a cube that big, the main factor for any card is working in a number of different kinds of decks, especially different archetypes. (Okay, Bösium Strip doesn't pass that test, but I did say it was a weaker nostalgia card.)
It also helps that I co-manage the cube with my sister. I'm plugged into the community, so I know the cards that everybody says are great-- but she isn't plugged in, so her evaluations are more organic. That push-and-pull is good for producing a dynamic cube environment (although I just don't understand why she won't let me cut Foul Imp).
I'm not a rich person, and I can't just order expensive cards like Prismatic Vista because I want them. Everyone in the main cube forum just assumes that anybody can afford any given card. I understand why they do that: it helps make unbiased evaluations. Still, it leaves people like me, and I assume many others in the dust.
I highly recommend building a cube out of whatever cards you have lying around (rares and mythics included). You can then start to preen from there. It has produced a truly lush and unique environment for us over time, and I enjoy it much more than the traditional cubes I've played. If anybody is ever interested in talking about a low-power list, I'm always happy to compare notes. I have a lot of opinions, and a lot of card suggestions. Army Ants!
I never considered building peasant. Why would I impose such a random stricture? But now that I'm looking to build a second cube, I'm reconsidering.
I am moving to the UK for a two year graduate program, and I can't take my 1800 card cube with me. I'll be leaving it with my sister. As such, I want to build something small enough and cheap enough that I can easily bring it. I have no interest in the artificial requirement to exclude all rares and mythics, but I don't want to take any cards that I would be unhappy to see destroyed. Thus I can really see the appeal of a C/U cube. I don't want to buy anything at all for the new cube (except maybe a full cycle of trilands), and the chaff rares that I have lying around are really a random array. I see myself playing almost all commons and uncommons, and the archives here are a really useful resource.
In the end, the true appeal of peasant/pauper is that it is established and played while remaining dirt cheap. I don't see why anybody would build a peasant cube and put an overpriced, overpowered card like Mana Drain in, but I guess people do that. I also never saw the point of putting an auto-take card like Ancestral Recall in any cube, but people love it, so go figure.
Dirt cheap + strong existing community are compelling reasons. Still, I recommend the low-power, rares-included model to anyone. The only drawback is the lack of meaningful discussion. And... well I'm here!
Moving back to actual Peasant, this is an interesting point. Are there any wraths you could see downgrading for something like a Masters set? Maybe something like Hour of Devastation without any of the extra text? It still feels rare though. Maybe 3RR for 4 damage. Maybe a slow rolling wrath like a saga could work at uncommon. What about a downgrade for Planar Collapse (or a functional reprint without regeneration text)? Probably not even good enough for peasant. I could see a Fall of the Thran style temporary wrath working at uncommon.
Forced March might be just at the sweet spot for power level. It could take the Infest slot in a Modern Horizons limited environment. But triple black at uncommon...
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
We share cube philosophies. Can you link me to your cube? Mine is in my signature. I can't view signatures on my Windows Phone. I want to trade some drafts over cubetutor.
But yeah, I definitely agree. When I put Genju of the Realm and Child of Alara into my otherwise Pauper cube people freaked out. They turned out to be fine.
A lot of cards scale with power level and/or are symmetrical so I don't really see a problem with say, including Pox in a cube alongside Benalish Hero and Kjeldoran Skycaptain.
As far as expensive cards go, there are always counterfeit cards or printing out proxies. You don't have to pay $200 for Shahrazad if you don't want to.
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.
I'm glad to. Here's a link.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.