On Baral's Expertise: I was listening to the GAM podcast with Gerry Thompson and Michael Majors yesterday, they talk standard mostly, and were talking about cards that have impressed them in early testing. Major's was saying that this Expertise is fantastic in control due to it's ability to bounce their board while putting a 4 CMC planeswalker into play. I've seen it mentioned mostly as a tempo card on this forum, but I hadn't thought about that interaction yet. Obviously, Cube isn't standard, but the ability to go Expertise into Jace, Gideon, Tezzeret, Ajani, etc, seems like a very strong play in control (edit: and midrange) shells.
Whir of Invention is an instant, and could do things like find an Aether Spellbomb or Tormod's Crypt or something at instant speed. Could provide a bit of interaction, along with being additional copies of Ironworks in a pinch and a way to search out Bloom.
1. Question...Why not categorize them as all 4 possible combinations? For the Grandmaster, it can be voted on in the White, WR, WU, and WUR sections? Since the card changes in power level depending on the color combination, it seems worthwhile to do it this way.
2. Same response as #1. I understand this may not be as "pure" as forcing the cards into one group, but that restriction seems unhelpful for this exercise.
3. {C} Cards should be in their own section. They force different requirements on the construction of your cube and the mana in your deck. Reality Smasher should not be judged against Wurmcoil Engine. Similarly to points 1 and 2, I think cards with {C} activated abilities should be up for vote in the {C} section as well.
4. I don't think cards like Arcane Savant should be judged against normal blue cards. A 12th section is fine with me.
5. I would keep this to top 3-5 for each, as that is the interesting discussion point for cube managers, not what the general best tri-colored cards are.
6. I would vote for an "adjusted win percentage" metric here. The idea of an adjusted win percentage metric would be that you take the win % of the card (ie, the win % of players who cast the card), and weight that by the percentage of games the spell was actually cast. This forces you to consider casting cost in relation to power level, as well as flexibility in terms of likelihood the card makes your final deck. So a first pick Preordain might not be a super high win-percentage card, doubtfully much higher than 50%, but it's going to get cast in a huge percentage of games relative to a card like Future Sight or even Whirler Rougue, so it would be high up in the blue rankings.
Can you comment on what "extensive testing" means for you? Are you doing drafts with these cards added in to your packs, or are you taking finished drafted decks, and adding these cards in logical spots?
While I'm assuming they're not going to be interested in just well-tuned, balanced, solid 540 lists as they are wacky / creative ideas, this is still the kind of thing that should be right up this forum's alley.
It's a weird curve topper though because you're not getting full use out of him till the following turn (when you have mana available). Also, how often are you really going to want to cast your opponents cards as the mono-red deck? 'Sweet, just flipped a Wrath of God!' The fact that you can't play lands is the camel-back-breaking-straw, for me. I'll be passing.
I'm pretty sure I would be jumping out of my chair if I flipped a Wrath of God. We should also examine the opportunity cost of exiling cards from our opponent's deck.
Not completely sold on this card but it is significantly better than what is being discussed here.
Exiling random cards from your opponents deck provides precisely no value. Sometimes it will be good, sometimes bad. The point of the Wrath of God example is to show that there are plenty of cards that decks play that the mono-red deck will have either no interest in casting, or be completely unable to play (lands).
Let's put it this way...I see Stromkirk Occultist as a stronger cube card than this, and I don't think the Occultist is good enough at any cube size.
The main different between the two is that Grenzo can connect the turn he hits the board. He's also a 2-drop than get on board and connect by himself before the Occultist. But anyhow, the first point is the line between good and bad.
Grenzo can "hit" the turn the comes down only if you play him with extra mana open, and he'll only hit at a similiar rate as the Occultist if you're attacking with multiple creatures (because his exile trigger will hit much fewer playable cards than the Occultist).
It's a weird curve topper though because you're not getting full use out of him till the following turn (when you have mana available). Also, how often are you really going to want to cast your opponents cards as the mono-red deck? 'Sweet, just flipped a Wrath of God!' The fact that you can't play lands is the camel-back-breaking-straw, for me. I'll be passing.
I'm pretty sure I would be jumping out of my chair if I flipped a Wrath of God. We should also examine the opportunity cost of exiling cards from our opponent's deck.
Not completely sold on this card but it is significantly better than what is being discussed here.
Exiling random cards from your opponents deck provides precisely no value. Sometimes it will be good, sometimes bad. The point of the Wrath of God example is to show that there are plenty of cards that decks play that the mono-red deck will have either no interest in casting, or be completely unable to play (lands).
Let's put it this way...I see Stromkirk Occultist as a stronger cube card than this, and I don't think the Occultist is good enough at any cube size.
Looks at least as good since decks sporting EQ usually aren't aggro decks. EQ is nice in the fact that it's a kill condition and can end the game in a draw if need be. Not sure how I feel, but initial impression is positive.
I would always run an earthquake as reach in an aggro deck. It's a great last card to cast once you get them to 5 but they've gummed up the ground.
The fact that it can't hit players makes it a little bit more narrow, in that red burn decks don't want to play it.
On the other hand, the fact that at 5 mana this becomes destroy most creatures and all artifacts makes it very interesting as a sweeper. I think it will need to be tested. My initial thought is pass, but there's potential.
I get that he has pretty rough stats and the casting cost is meh, but still this is probably as close as we are going to get to Edric in red, which is HUGE. Maybe I'm overvaluing the peusdo-draw, but I feel like this guy absolutely has to be tested.
I think comparing him to Edric is a mistake. If Edric draws you a card for each creature that hits your opponent, Grenzo draws you probably less than a third of a card.
Edit: Calling Grenzo the red Edric is like calling Commune with Lava the red Stroke of Genius, except worse, because you're drawing from your opponent's deck.
I don't think anybody's advocating Grenzo as a potential slot in, say, Legacy burn. Not every deck subscribes to the philosophy of fire.
Grenzo looks like hot funsies for a few formats. Conspiracy draft and EDH immediately come to mind. For cubes, he offers plenty of potential interactions, depending on how it's built.
I would agree, if he didn't cost RR. At that mana cost, I'm really only considering him as a card for the monoish-red player at the table, and I don't think he does enough for those decks.
I think against decks that don't have enough creatures for the exile clause to be worthwhile, the goad text will be relevant enough that he won't be just a bear. A ground stall is the last thing I want to see if I'm heavy in red, and goad has the potential to get damage moving around again.
I would too, but am loathe to include an RR card in a deck with low-drops from other colors. The mana cost is easier for this guy if you think of him as a 4-drop, but he pails in comparison to other red cards in that slot.
Because I'll really be complaining if this exiles a Wrath on top while I'm getting through on combat.
I like it more than some of the other cards I'm running. I do wish it had room for rules text on Goad though.
It said you may cast, so I don't see why you'll be complaining. Especially if you would have to suffer from the wrath next turn. I don't get your point.
About Grenzo, the card seems busted. Another CA engine for red, that's awesome! Getting to cast you opponent's bears or removals in the late game is value if you're on topdeck mode. This compenses a lot for one of the few red deck win weakness. Really like it!
If you cast him T4, you'd possibly have 2 mana to work with, and if you're playing that Rx aggro deck, you're not just flipping the top card. You're flipping the top 2-4 cards. In an environment where every card is good, even if you hit WCS of having nothing you can/want to cast, it just means your opponent can't have those cards either.
I'm not talking about Wrath specifically. I'm talking about cards that just don't do mono-red much good. As a mono-red player, I'm playing by the philosophy of fire, ie "how much damage does each card represent, and how can I leverage my mana most efficiently to output the most damage." As the mono-red player, I would play Lava Spike over Outpost Siege any day for this reason.
Now grenzo's not Outpost Siege for 2 reasons...one, it's on a stick (albeit a crappy one), which is a big advantage in terms of the philosphy of fire. But two, you're not flipping your own cards, and you're not burning through your own lands to improve the quality of your own draws. All you're getting is access to a random card from your opponents deck list. That card is only relevant at all if it's a non-land, it's cast-able, and it's a better use of mana than what you had going. And again, for mono-red, I think the subset of cards that meets that standard of relevance is likely alot smaller than you think. Add that on to the fact that it's a hard to cast bear with only minor other upside (the goad text will often just be flavor text), and I don't think it's worth including over even the most mediocre red two-drop in Ash Zealot.
Assuming 5 cards per guild, your mean cards drawn will be 4.2, and your 1st-to-3rd quartile range will be 3-5.
On Baral's Expertise: I was listening to the GAM podcast with Gerry Thompson and Michael Majors yesterday, they talk standard mostly, and were talking about cards that have impressed them in early testing. Major's was saying that this Expertise is fantastic in control due to it's ability to bounce their board while putting a 4 CMC planeswalker into play. I've seen it mentioned mostly as a tempo card on this forum, but I hadn't thought about that interaction yet. Obviously, Cube isn't standard, but the ability to go Expertise into Jace, Gideon, Tezzeret, Ajani, etc, seems like a very strong play in control (edit: and midrange) shells.
2. Excluded
3. Excluded
4. Excluded
2. Same response as #1. I understand this may not be as "pure" as forcing the cards into one group, but that restriction seems unhelpful for this exercise.
3. {C} Cards should be in their own section. They force different requirements on the construction of your cube and the mana in your deck. Reality Smasher should not be judged against Wurmcoil Engine. Similarly to points 1 and 2, I think cards with {C} activated abilities should be up for vote in the {C} section as well.
4. I don't think cards like Arcane Savant should be judged against normal blue cards. A 12th section is fine with me.
5. I would keep this to top 3-5 for each, as that is the interesting discussion point for cube managers, not what the general best tri-colored cards are.
6. I would vote for an "adjusted win percentage" metric here. The idea of an adjusted win percentage metric would be that you take the win % of the card (ie, the win % of players who cast the card), and weight that by the percentage of games the spell was actually cast. This forces you to consider casting cost in relation to power level, as well as flexibility in terms of likelihood the card makes your final deck. So a first pick Preordain might not be a super high win-percentage card, doubtfully much higher than 50%, but it's going to get cast in a huge percentage of games relative to a card like Future Sight or even Whirler Rougue, so it would be high up in the blue rankings.
While I'm assuming they're not going to be interested in just well-tuned, balanced, solid 540 lists as they are wacky / creative ideas, this is still the kind of thing that should be right up this forum's alley.
Grenzo can "hit" the turn the comes down only if you play him with extra mana open, and he'll only hit at a similiar rate as the Occultist if you're attacking with multiple creatures (because his exile trigger will hit much fewer playable cards than the Occultist).
Exiling random cards from your opponents deck provides precisely no value. Sometimes it will be good, sometimes bad. The point of the Wrath of God example is to show that there are plenty of cards that decks play that the mono-red deck will have either no interest in casting, or be completely unable to play (lands).
Let's put it this way...I see Stromkirk Occultist as a stronger cube card than this, and I don't think the Occultist is good enough at any cube size.
I would always run an earthquake as reach in an aggro deck. It's a great last card to cast once you get them to 5 but they've gummed up the ground.
On the other hand, the fact that at 5 mana this becomes destroy most creatures and all artifacts makes it very interesting as a sweeper. I think it will need to be tested. My initial thought is pass, but there's potential.
I think comparing him to Edric is a mistake. If Edric draws you a card for each creature that hits your opponent, Grenzo draws you probably less than a third of a card.
Edit: Calling Grenzo the red Edric is like calling Commune with Lava the red Stroke of Genius, except worse, because you're drawing from your opponent's deck.
I would agree, if he didn't cost RR. At that mana cost, I'm really only considering him as a card for the monoish-red player at the table, and I don't think he does enough for those decks.
I would too, but am loathe to include an RR card in a deck with low-drops from other colors. The mana cost is easier for this guy if you think of him as a 4-drop, but he pails in comparison to other red cards in that slot.
I'm not talking about Wrath specifically. I'm talking about cards that just don't do mono-red much good. As a mono-red player, I'm playing by the philosophy of fire, ie "how much damage does each card represent, and how can I leverage my mana most efficiently to output the most damage." As the mono-red player, I would play Lava Spike over Outpost Siege any day for this reason.
Now grenzo's not Outpost Siege for 2 reasons...one, it's on a stick (albeit a crappy one), which is a big advantage in terms of the philosphy of fire. But two, you're not flipping your own cards, and you're not burning through your own lands to improve the quality of your own draws. All you're getting is access to a random card from your opponents deck list. That card is only relevant at all if it's a non-land, it's cast-able, and it's a better use of mana than what you had going. And again, for mono-red, I think the subset of cards that meets that standard of relevance is likely alot smaller than you think. Add that on to the fact that it's a hard to cast bear with only minor other upside (the goad text will often just be flavor text), and I don't think it's worth including over even the most mediocre red two-drop in Ash Zealot.