@hardb0dy
You need to take a step back and be rational here. You are drawing conclusions that are portraying false arguments which I never presented nor intended.
I get this forum has a knee jerk reaction to the term "good players" being thrown down, but never once did I imply, or say, or hint at that you were a bad player for not running it, or not liking it. I simply stated that to see the full value of the card it takes a level of play skill, and in MY personal experience I've never seen the risks outweigh the rewards in the hands of a "good player."
Considering there's hundreds of cards in a cube, with a exponential amount of variation, I don't expect everyone to run this card, whether they be good or bad players. Everyone has their reasons to run certain cards, and I'm not going to draw conclusions on their play abilities based on what they run, because what one person finds fun (which is the point of cubing) another might not.
The term "good player" was solely used because I think we can all agree that at least 99% of the players who have just started playing Magic are not "good players." We all make a journey to become better players, and from my experience (which really is all I can be expected to draw on for analysis) the better players have an easier time playing around the drawbacks. Is this such a crime to state? Is this not valuable to those that have started playing, or only used the card when they were less experienced to review the card and see if things have changed in their analysis. Maybe keep it in the back of their head for review in the future?
The comparison of FoW or Memory Lapse was not relevant, since it had nothing to do with the argument or the analysis of Arcane Denial. It was brought up on false assumptions, and thin conclusions, which is why I didn't get why you thought it was relevant. I can state now that it's not.
It looks like you came into this just looking for a fight instead of constructive analysis. You are trying to draw hidden conclusions from my analysis and apply it to your own straw man argument. Their are so many reasons to include or not include a card, why would this one aspect be the single conclusion of why you should run a card, and how could I draw off that conclusion that you are a bad player? I don't think you're a bad player for not running Arcane Denial, and it would be wrong of me to think so.
@dschumm
I never said you had to run it. That was never a conclusion. Nor did I say if you're an experienced player you would run it. For the exact reasons you explained are why I would not say this is a must run card and why I stated in my initial argument "though with everything you have to evaluate your cube design to decide what stays in." I do appreciate the constructiveness of your feedback as it was well put, though the point it was drawn off of was not a point made.
Overall I think I was wrong in using the term "good player." Each person has a different viewpoint of what and who a "good player" is and it was not very descriptive of what I was trying to portray. Not only that it made people draw conclusions that were not intended or implied. It was just meant as a quick synopsis on my views with the card so I didn't think much about it. Next time I'll be sure to explain myself better.
The drawback being "real" is why I say it plays better with more experienced players. It has the obvious uses, the must counter plays that are staring you in the face, but there are also those nuance plays. You have to be able to read your opponents board, and the draft, to know what your opponent can pull, and if they will draw anything better than the card they are playing (for the current board state). Sometimes those "must" counter plays are not obvious either. That's what I have seen been done with better players, and it really opens up the range of play for the card compared to those limiting it's uses so as not to make a mistake that could cost them the game (carrying a silver bullet instead of using it as a weapon to parry your opponent when they show an opening).
"But I don't see how this is better in the hands of a good player than say FoW or Memory Lapse"
And I fail to see how this is relevant to whether or not Arcane Denial is worthy of consideration for a person's cube or my case of why you should consider it...
but for sake of argument though, both FoW and Memory Lapse do take skill. Memory Lapse is a different read though, and one that is way more obvious. Reading the current tempo of the board is way easier due to the information being right in front of you, and making the decision to Memory Lapse to continue your tempo and slow down theirs is something you learn quite quickly. I'm not going to compare FoW and Arcane Denial, since I think they are leagues apart in terms of cube inclusion and any comparison is not really value gained.
Since I didn't elaborate before and I guess I should have, the long and short of it is, Arcane Denial is a great card, but it takes a certain degree of experience to open up the value it offers without risking the drawbacks outweighing the gains. This is something to consider if a) your new to cubing and magic or b) you disregarded this card when you were a worse player, and now the card might open up for you.
It's still a great card. It does require a higher skill level to play though (reading the board and your opponents deck, knowing when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages). Just something to consider with your individual playgroups and how you want to manage your cube.
Personally I like it slightly better than Memory Lapse on a card to card basis, though with everything you have to evaluate your cube design to decide what stays in (AKA Memory Lapse I think is better in a tempo setting, where I would argue Arcane Denial could and should be used in any deck).
I do think that the card has also gotten better over time, as must counter targets have increase in general.
As for experience with the card, in the hands of good players, I can't recall seeing the drawback outweigh the gains.
It's not too powerful for an unpowered cube, the removal of the powered mana really bring this cards speed down. Still would pick it extremely high, but it's not "powered" like the other cards are. As for fun factor, that's up to your playgroup.
Was just wondering what dual lands everyone values the most other than the obvious 3 (ABU Duals, Rav Duals, and Fetch Lands). Cut back down to 4 guild lands, but I'm having second thoughts about what I kept and what I got rid of. Interested to see what people liked as their 4th+ land and why.
Finally got around to updating my cube on here. After much talk with the group decided to cut it down to 450 since we don't cube with as many people anymore.
Iwamori was in my cube a long long time ago, and even then he was cut before this slew of amazing 4 drops. The problem was he had too high risk. Too many times did he give your opponent a free legendary, only to be terror'd or sworded.
#1 Sword of Fire and Ice - Red protection is amazing, along with drawing a card and dealing 2 damages as you want is just so ridiculous (plus being able to hit them and take out a planeswalker at the same time.)
#2 Sword of Body and Mind - The abilities on this card are just so oppressive.
#3 Sword of Life and Death - Good prots, and great abilities, but not as good as aboves.
#4 Sword of War and Peace - Red protection again, but with abilities that you can't count on as much.
#5 Sword of Feast and Famine - I've had it's abilities just be dead too often and have no impact
Ahh okay, sorry about the wall of text then. If that's the case upload your list! I love looking at lists and seeing what a person is running, and maybe help them with something design orientated.
Agree with what Goodking and wtwlf say about black aggro. It's really strong. It also slides easily into a Pox deck and that is some seriously disruptive poop right there. And I'm really happy to have the Scarhide, even if I'm having trouble deciding what to cut.
I see a lot of discussion of aggro on these boards that seem to focus on just one color. Are aggro decks usually one color in most cubes? Because we rarely see mono decks in my drafts (if we do, it's almost always mono black aggro). When I see people here saying "black aggro isn't good because black can't do X" or "green aggro is no good because it has no burn" I always think that's what other colors are for. I always assume that I'll be running two colors when I'm in aggro.
Cheers,
rant
Most mono-color decks are not that good. And when they are it's a special thing.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Why Hierarch!?
You need to take a step back and be rational here. You are drawing conclusions that are portraying false arguments which I never presented nor intended.
I get this forum has a knee jerk reaction to the term "good players" being thrown down, but never once did I imply, or say, or hint at that you were a bad player for not running it, or not liking it. I simply stated that to see the full value of the card it takes a level of play skill, and in MY personal experience I've never seen the risks outweigh the rewards in the hands of a "good player."
Considering there's hundreds of cards in a cube, with a exponential amount of variation, I don't expect everyone to run this card, whether they be good or bad players. Everyone has their reasons to run certain cards, and I'm not going to draw conclusions on their play abilities based on what they run, because what one person finds fun (which is the point of cubing) another might not.
The term "good player" was solely used because I think we can all agree that at least 99% of the players who have just started playing Magic are not "good players." We all make a journey to become better players, and from my experience (which really is all I can be expected to draw on for analysis) the better players have an easier time playing around the drawbacks. Is this such a crime to state? Is this not valuable to those that have started playing, or only used the card when they were less experienced to review the card and see if things have changed in their analysis. Maybe keep it in the back of their head for review in the future?
The comparison of FoW or Memory Lapse was not relevant, since it had nothing to do with the argument or the analysis of Arcane Denial. It was brought up on false assumptions, and thin conclusions, which is why I didn't get why you thought it was relevant. I can state now that it's not.
It looks like you came into this just looking for a fight instead of constructive analysis. You are trying to draw hidden conclusions from my analysis and apply it to your own straw man argument. Their are so many reasons to include or not include a card, why would this one aspect be the single conclusion of why you should run a card, and how could I draw off that conclusion that you are a bad player? I don't think you're a bad player for not running Arcane Denial, and it would be wrong of me to think so.
@dschumm
I never said you had to run it. That was never a conclusion. Nor did I say if you're an experienced player you would run it. For the exact reasons you explained are why I would not say this is a must run card and why I stated in my initial argument "though with everything you have to evaluate your cube design to decide what stays in." I do appreciate the constructiveness of your feedback as it was well put, though the point it was drawn off of was not a point made.
Overall I think I was wrong in using the term "good player." Each person has a different viewpoint of what and who a "good player" is and it was not very descriptive of what I was trying to portray. Not only that it made people draw conclusions that were not intended or implied. It was just meant as a quick synopsis on my views with the card so I didn't think much about it. Next time I'll be sure to explain myself better.
"But I don't see how this is better in the hands of a good player than say FoW or Memory Lapse"
And I fail to see how this is relevant to whether or not Arcane Denial is worthy of consideration for a person's cube or my case of why you should consider it...
but for sake of argument though, both FoW and Memory Lapse do take skill. Memory Lapse is a different read though, and one that is way more obvious. Reading the current tempo of the board is way easier due to the information being right in front of you, and making the decision to Memory Lapse to continue your tempo and slow down theirs is something you learn quite quickly. I'm not going to compare FoW and Arcane Denial, since I think they are leagues apart in terms of cube inclusion and any comparison is not really value gained.
Since I didn't elaborate before and I guess I should have, the long and short of it is, Arcane Denial is a great card, but it takes a certain degree of experience to open up the value it offers without risking the drawbacks outweighing the gains. This is something to consider if a) your new to cubing and magic or b) you disregarded this card when you were a worse player, and now the card might open up for you.
Personally I like it slightly better than Memory Lapse on a card to card basis, though with everything you have to evaluate your cube design to decide what stays in (AKA Memory Lapse I think is better in a tempo setting, where I would argue Arcane Denial could and should be used in any deck).
I do think that the card has also gotten better over time, as must counter targets have increase in general.
As for experience with the card, in the hands of good players, I can't recall seeing the drawback outweigh the gains.
Thank eidolon. I had missed taking out Gifts Ungiven and Show and Tell and adding in Kalonian Hydra
Please take a look and would love any feedback.
#2 Sword of Body and Mind - The abilities on this card are just so oppressive.
#3 Sword of Life and Death - Good prots, and great abilities, but not as good as aboves.
#4 Sword of War and Peace - Red protection again, but with abilities that you can't count on as much.
#5 Sword of Feast and Famine - I've had it's abilities just be dead too often and have no impact
Ahh okay, sorry about the wall of text then. If that's the case upload your list! I love looking at lists and seeing what a person is running, and maybe help them with something design orientated.
Most mono-color decks are not that good. And when they are it's a special thing.