MTG Salvation

If it isn't clear, the intent is that you need to have seven different cards in your graveyard. For example, an artifact creature only counts as one of the seven cards, and you choose whether it counts as the artifact one or the creature one. Either way, you need to have another card of the other type. Based on the Herald cycle from Alara, the wording I used should do that.
Name changed (it was End of Hostilities) because I had forgotten that a card named End Hostilities already exists, remembering only because I rediscovered it on Gatherer while looking for cards with "end" in the name to make July MCC banners.

Anyway it goes, it has been a pleasure to be back in the DCC. Thanks to Flatline, if it weren't for him I wouldn't have come back at all very probably. It's also been a pleasure to "fight against" all of you this month, in quotation marks as it's not really a fight, but more like a friendly competition, despite the apparent oxymoron. Who knows what will happen tomorrow? (Nexus isn't up yet, will July be still hosted here? Will there be contests in July at all?)

...his dog, he's just beautiful... I wish you all the best with him, and I'm certain he will give you all the love that my own dog has given me for seven years, and even more! My own dog was a cross between a German Shepherd and a Pincher. He came from a dog refuge (always do that if you're looking for a dog, no need to buy it, there are so many in refuges and they're looking for you, just as you're looking for them) and he died from cancer last September (2018, on the morning of Saturday 22nd, exactly seven days before my birthday...) at 8 (still so young) after seven years in my family, but he's still alive in my heart. I still love him, and wherever he might be now, I know that he still loves me too.

One of the first things any new player learns (or needs to learn if he’s to find any success and enjoyment in the game), is that some Magic cards are more powerful than others. They have low mana costs for their effects, they do something few other cards in the game (or format) do, or they’re extremely versatile. So deckbuilding is just an exercise in determining which cards are the most powerful in any given format (a relatively easy exercise) and throw as many of them as our mana will allow into a deck, right? Luckily, this is not the case. Some relatively less powerful cards shine in combination with certain other cards, forming decks that are greater than the sum of their parts and that can go toe-to-toe with the decks playing the most powerful cards in the format. Such cards are said to have “synergy” with each other. The basic tension between power and synergy is at the heart of basically any Magic format.

Cube is no exception. While Cube originated from a desire to play Limited with the best (i.e. most powerful) cards in Magic’s history, when you combine cards from over 20 years’ worth of Magic sets, strange things happen and strong synergy-based decks come together. The next logical step, and one most Cube designers have taken a long time ago (although to different degrees), is to intentionally “seed” certain synergies into their lists. Whether it’s because a Cube designer wants to recreate and relive a beloved deck from some past or current format, or it’s with the aim of mimicking recent retail Limited formats, where some or all color combinations usually have fairly well-defined synergy-based strategies available to them, the end result is the same: drafters are incentivized to pay attention not just to the power levels of the cards in their packs, but also to any synergies those cards have with the cards already drafted (or even with cards they hope to open or get passed later in the draft!).

In this article I will use the term “archetype” to refer to a set of cards that share a certain synergy, or to a deck based around that particular synergy. I think this use is fairly commonplace in Cube discussions, but it’s important to note that it’s slightly different from the use of “archetype” in non-Cube Magic talk, where it has the meaning of “deck sharing similarities (and usually a number of cards) with other known decks, regardless of the deck in question being power-based or synergy-based”. In non-Cube Magic, one may refer to “the Blue-White Control archetype”, or the “Sligh/Red Aggro archetype”. For the purposes of this article, however, those are not descriptions of archetypes, but indicate that decks belong to a certain “theatre”. Decks in the same theatre can differ wildly from one another, but share a similar fundamental strategy, meaning they look to win the game in a similar way and in a similar amount of time (i.e. turns).

There are four theatres: aggro, control, midrange and combo.

An aggro deck uses creatures costing one to three mana backed up by some form of disruption and/or reach to reduce the opponent’s life total to zero in the early game (around turn five, ideally). A midrange deck relies mainly on creatures and planeswalkers costing from three to five mana, often played ahead of schedule due to mana acceleration and backed up by some card or board advantage engine to grind opponents out in the mid to late game. A control deck’s strengths are cheap interaction (blockers or spot removal spells), counterspells, mass removal and card drawing. It wants to win in the late game after answering all the opponent’s threats and dedicates only a few deck slots to actual victory conditions. A combo deck foregoes all or most interaction with the opponent in order to assemble a combination of cards that will win the game more or less on the spot, relatively early in the game.

Note that I consider combo to be a separate theatre, but an optional one. While decks using each of the three main strategies will come together almost automatically in each draft (although not necessarily an equal amount of each), the question of whether a combo deck is possible depends entirely on the particular Cube list in use and requires special attention of the Cube designer. It’s entirely possible to run a successful list without any combo support, but it’s also possible to support archetypes that play very similarly to combo decks in Constructed Magic and that cannot be usefully classified as aggro, control or midrange.

Archetypes and theatres exist side by side. Each deck belongs to a certain theatre (note that hybrids are possible) and may or may not belong to one or more archetypes. Some archetypes always play in the same theatre (Storm is always a combo deck), while others can be flexible (Tokens can be an aggro deck, a midrange deck, or even a combo deck in extreme circumstances).

Archetypes are also not to be confused with themes. A “theme” is a design choice with an overarching impact on the entire Cube, where many or even all of the individual cards are somehow related to the central theme. Themes can be gameplay-related (e.g. Tribal Cubes, Artifact Cubes, Multicolor Cubes, Creatureless Cubes (!)) or be based on flavor, storyline or even something like a particular artist. Archetypes differ from themes because they’re much narrower in scope: in a small (360-450) list, supporting an archetype can often be done by adding 5-10 archetype-specific cards, while introducing a particular theme will most likely entail a full Cube re-design.

The benefits of the archetype-based approach to Cube design are clear: the drafting process becomes more interesting, because it’s not just a matter of picking two (hopefully open) colors and then drafting the most powerful card in those colors that’s in each pack. Archetype-based decks are very satisfying to play (at least when they’re successful), as the drafter feels like he has created a small work of art (even though arguably the credit should go at least partly to the Cube designer). Archetypes also help to set one Cube apart from another, because whether a certain archetype is available depends on the subjective preferences of the Cube designer. Since finding the most powerful cards in each color is easy (relatively speaking), all Cubes would look alike if power level was the only criterion to decide on a card’s in- or exclusion.

However, archetype-based Cube design can be taken too far. Since cards that are included due to their synergies with other cards are by definition less powerful in a vacuum, drafters who are drafting a deck not based on that particular set of synergies will not be interested in those cards. Conversely, a player who is drafting a certain archetype will be less interested in any cards not working well in that archetype. In the extreme case, where a list has as many archetypes as there are drafters, and very few cards that are generally powerful, the decks will look the same draft after draft, and you might as well be playing Constructed at that point.

The solution to this issue is twofold: “anchor cards” and “cross-pollination”. “Anchor cards” are cards whose objective (i.e. archetype-independent) power level is high enough that their inclusion in the Cube can be justified based on that alone, but that get even better when played in a certain archetype. Restoration Angel is an anchor card for the Blink archetype, as is Tinker for the Artifacts archetype, and Siege-Gang Commander for the Tokens archetype. Using anchor cards, it’s possible to support archetypes without including too many cards that are useful only in that archetype.

“Cross-pollination” occurs when two different archetypes share certain similarities, or rely partly on the same set of cards, so that it’s possible to include elements of both in the same deck. Think of it as “synergy between synergies”. Examples are Tokens-Pox/Stax, and Storm-Spells Matter. A card that works well in multiple supported archetypes can earn its place in the Cube, even if its objective power level isn’t quite on par with that of other Cube cards.

Another pitfall to watch out for is scattering support cards for a single archetype over too many colors. You may have a couple of cards in all five colors that have awesome synergy, but if no deck can reliably cast all of those cards, the archetype will not be successful. It’s better to choose one or two colors for each archetype and only support the archetype within those colors. Note that some archetypes are deep enough that you can conceivably run cards for them in all five colors, for example Tokens and Blink.

In order to provide Cube managers with some ideas on which archetypes to support, I’ve compiled the following alphabetical list. It is meant to be comprehensive, meaning that some of the “archetypes” will be a bit “out there”, i.e. I don’t expect many Cube designers to include them. Of course, I’m bound to have missed some archetypes, so if you think of any others, please leave a comment to that effect and I will add them to the list.

For each archetype, I’ve listed the color(s) that are able to support it (main and secondary), its “anchor cards” (see above), some archetype-specific cards (i.e. cards you probably only want to include if you intend to support that archetype*), the “theatre(s)” the archetype can play in and any “cross-pollination” with other archetypes (see above). Note that this depends on Cube size. A card may well be a staple at 720 and “only” an archetype-support card at 360.

I’ve intentionally excluded from the list a number of powerful cards that nevertheless require a deck to be built around them in order to be effective. Examples are Moat, Upheaval, Doran, the Siege Tower and Isochron Scepter. These cards have very unique effects that are not available (at reasonable costs) on any other cards. At the same time it’s pretty obvious which cards work well together with them (you play Moat in a deck with fliers, Doran with creatures with higher toughness than power and Isochron Scepter with cheap instants - shocking, I know). I don’t think it’s very useful to consider these full-blown archetypes.

A final comment: while I hope any Cube designer can find some inspiration in this list, it’s mainly written for singleton, single-player, rares-allowed, unthemed (see above), Vintage-legal Cubes of any size. This is simply because I have little to no experience with other types of Cubes.

As noted throughout this article, some cards with slightly lower power levels (for Cube standards, of course) may nevertheless be worth including because they contribute to several specific archetypes (preferably while being respectable cards in their own right).Here are ten cards you may not have considered before, but which may have an interesting role to play in your list.

Appeal: 2/3 - Timmy likes dragons costing 7 mana, but not donothing rocks. Johnny and Spike see 7 colorless mana as a magic number and get in on this for about the same reason.
Elegance: 3/3 - It's very orderly, very simple to understand.

Viability: 2.5/3 - This is pretty hard to judge, partly because of the push to move away from colorless artifacts, and -x/-x is a black effect more than anything. That said, This probably fits within the narrowness of effects wizards is willing to give colorless, especially since it only affects colorless cards. I would prefer this be black and will mark down for that, but forego the usual extra half-point deduction related to the subchallenge because it's really just borderline. Mythic feels right.
Balance: 2/3 - This is an interesting card for what it hoses. In a vacuum it's an incredibly inefficient removal engine, but it's a potential mirrorbreaker in tron and obliterates the affinity matchup besides. In commander it might get use as well, but other than that I can't see many people wanting it over things like Lux Cannon.

Uniqueness: 3/3 - There's a few one-shot -x/-x effects and a few static power and toughness reducing effects, but nothing on this scope that I'd feel willing to draw enough parallels to justify docking you for it.
Flavor: 2.5/3 - the text is a bit smushed with the length of flavor text you have, so there's a deduction there. I do like the flavor you have though - it doesn't explain everything, just enough to make me want to know a bit more.

Quality: 3/3 - No errors here!
Main Challenge: 2/2 - In a vacuum of just this and just emmy, end result is one dead emmy. Main Challenge is met.
Sub-Challenges: 2/2 - Both sub-challenges met.

Total Score: 22/25

Appeal: 1.5/3 - Timmy HATES everything about this card. Johnny LOVES everything about this card. Spike...he sees the utility but he's not thrilled about it. He'll still play it though when push comes to shove.
Elegance: 2.5/3 - There's going to be the standard confusion over what CMCs *actually* are of various stuff that's going to make this a pain at FNMs the world over. Even though the effect itself is elegant, in practice the application is very messy.

Viability: 2.5/3 - Again, there's precedent for this effect to be black (see Disembowel) but there's enough justification to also be colorless in historical precedent that I can't justify the extra half-point I normally would take. Rare is...probably right, I could see mythic as well.
Balance: 2/3 - It's four mana to destroy all tokens on the spot, wiping a field of 1 and 2-mana beaters is also hyper efficient. This is a card that will stifle aggro decks pretty badly, but a good aggro deck should have a control deck close to dead by then, and it in theory creates a shields down moment. In practice...it's going to be a card you hate to see.

Uniqueness: 1.5/3 - It's like Toxic Deluge and Ratchet Bomb had a one-night stand, and this is what came of it. The influence is obvious.
Flavor: 2/3 - Artifact Enchantment and the diefic reference makes it obvious this is supposed to be from Theros. Having a name more suited for Tarkir (Mongolian, the internet tells me) bugs me for several reasons. Also the flavor text cuts off at the bottom of the card, it's a bit too long.

Quality: 3/3 - Everything's in place here. Nice work.
Main Challenge: 2/2 - Short of indestructible there's no way this doesn't kill Emmy. Main Challenge is met.
Sub-Challeges: 2/2 - Subchallenges are met.

Total Score: 19/25

Appeal: 1/3 - Timmy shudders at having to give up one of his creatures. Johnny wants to abuse this with Abyssal Persecutor. Spike sees the advantage of a one-mana blue kill spell, then realizes doing so 2-for-0s himself and promptly loses interest.
Elegance: 2.5/3 - Switching is fine, stealing is not. There's a tiny bit of confusion on who "it" in "its owner" refers to as well as the CMC of things like a 6/6 Hydroid Krasis, but play it once or twice it'll clear up.

Viability: 3/3 - Everything here is in blue's wheelhouse. Donating stuff, switching control of stuff, exiling creatures with a downside. It's perfectly placed, and rare makes great sense.
Balance: 2.5/3 - This is going to be a total blank unless you're playing creatures. A mono-blue tempo deck might have a wide enough range to pick something off and live, but such a steep drawback even at one mana means you're going to look at everything else you possibly can before picking it up.

Uniqueness: 2.5/3 - A one-night stand between Reality shift and Donate, but this has a lot of interactions that neither of the other two cards can really compare with.
Flavor: 2.5/3 You need to use some imagination with this, for a one-word card name I'd like something more explicit. I also would like some flavor text, but there's not that much room to work with so you get a pass there.

Quality: 3/3 - No errors here.
Main Challenge: 0.5/2 - This is where I have to burst your bubble. Because the penalty for failing the scam is "you lose the game", you have to have a 13-mana creature to swap out. Your only option is...another Emrakul, the Promised End. Had the penalty been "skip your next turn" you would have been fine (and in color!), but the only end state after casting this card that keeps the game going is your opponent still has Emrakul still on board. (it's a different card but it's the same creature) Only in the most technical sense of the letter does this fulfill the challenge, and my initial suggestion was a 0 here. After review, I'm going to give you some credit because technically correct is the best kind of correct.
Sub-Challenges: 2/2 Both sub-challenges met.

Total Score: 19.5/25

Appeal: 2.5/3 - Timmy loves making his dudes huge, Johnny can't windmill slam this fast enough. Spike sees 4 colored mana symbols and dreams of back when you could just play swords to plowshares and be done with it.
Elegance: 2.5/3 - It's easy enough to understand once it's been played, but LKI is surprisingly hard to work out sometimes. There will be enough cases of judge calls to double check math that it'll get annoying.

Viability: 2.5/3 - This is peak blue/green, but normally blue exiling spells give your opponent something, not you. (See Pongify, Reality Shift and Rapid Hybridization). I also am pretty sure removal plus pump (especially if you're removing a big creature) should be rare.
Balance: 1.5/3 - This card is going to be picked over a LOT of rares in draft, just because it's clean removal that not only invalidates your opponent's bomb but gives you a giant beater to counter with. It warps limited something fierce, constructed can handle it but it's never not going to be a card you hate seeing every time you see it.

Uniqueness: 2.5/3 - Fits into the mold of blue "Exile a creature but..." spells, but also benefits you more than just being a removal spell. Very cool.
Flavor: 3/3 - Takes up all the space you have without taking any extra. You don't give an attribution, but it makes sense as a phyrexian and the colors fit as well. Nice job.

Quality: 3/3 - Ravenous Slime says the syntax of the second half of the ability is perfect.
Main Challenge: 2/2 - There are ways to stop it but in a vacuum that's a dead Emmy. Main challenge is met.
Sub-Challenges: 2/2 - Both Subchallenges met.

Total Score: 21.5/25

Appeal: 2/3 - Timmy will figure it out and likes his stuff killing puny wimpy creatures on your opponent's side. Johnny is all in on this, Spike sees upside but also sees card disadvantage.
Elegance: 2.5/3 - Any aura that's supposed to be put on the other side of the table is going to get people not understanding it, but in time it'll make sense.

Viability: 3/3 - It's got blue and green effects pretty cleanly. Most auras that do similar are commons (see Kasmina's Transmutation and Deep Freeze, but the extra removal clause I think warrants the rarity bump.
Balance: 2.5/3 - It's another card that's going to be picked over a lot of rares, because it beats most bombs. Cards like this are why enchantment removal is played in Arena limited maindecks, and at uncommon you're going to see it enough to be sick of it. Outside of limited I doubt it'll be too impactful. That the fight is mandatory also makes it less great in some instances.

Uniqueness: 2/3 - Clear hearkening back to those other auras that make a creature no longer a problem, but provides a way to answer the problem as well, ideally before they can Disenchant it is unique.
Flavor: 3/3 - There is a certain sublime essence to "Well if this doesn't work, it's still got meat" in Simic research mentality. I like this, and it doesn't squish the text box.

Quality: 3/3 - No issues here.
Main Challenge: 0/2 - Because I have to be Prince Puppy-kicker and ruin everyone's hopes and dreams. The clarifications say that a non-creature permanent must always be able to take out Emrakul by casting it, the permanent entering the battlefield, or using an activated ability of the permanent. This sets you up to take out Emmy, but it does not on its own do the job. Therefore this card does NOT meet the challenge criteria, and is summarily disqualified.
Sub-Challenge: 2/2 - Both subchallenges met.

Total Score: DQ - Fails Main Challenge

Appeal: 2/3 - Timmy is okay with it but would like it a bit bigger. Johnny wants to machine gun people to death with pebbles, Spike will take a Goblin Cavaliers with potential upside after rebate, but he's not jumping up and down over it.
Elegance: 3/3 - The directions on this card couldn't be more simple. Do this, then do this. When this, that happens. It's very clean.

Viability: 2/3 - When it says "colorless" the immediate thought should be "artifact". Knowing Wizards' new design philsophy change that was brought up in round one, this is a clear twist on pie to get a challenge cleared, so the additional penalties are applied. That said, rare is right, and while Disciple of the Vault is a thing, Red is justifiable.
Balance: 2.5/3 - Disciple was banned for being OP because at 1 mana you could just go off incredibly fast. At 4 mana, it's much safer even if you can figure out an infinite loop, Modern says turn 4 infinites are okay. Not sure how well it'd play in standard or limited, Commander will love this but again, not SUPER overpowered.

Uniqueness: 3/3 - There's lingering elements of a few cards here, but overall it feels fresh, at least fresh enough that I can't justify a deduction.
Flavor: 2.5/3 - I get more of a goblin vibe from the action, but dwarf also makes sense. Being able to use "Numismancer" and making treasure tokens is a great touch as well. I only have to deduct a little because you really don't have any flavor text room, the box is cramped as it is.

Quality: 3/3 - Someone clearly looked at scryfall or Rapacious Dragon when designing this, because that's the only printed card with the now correct Oracle text. I'm honestly impressed.
Main Challenge: 1.5/2 - Meets the main challenge, but it's pretty clear this card's design is stretched to kill Emmy. Here's the deduction for that.
Sub-Challenges: 2/2 - Both Subchallenges met.

Total Score: 21.5/25

Group A:
IcariiFA - 22/25 - ADVANCING
netn10 - 19.5/25
Mr. Rithaniel - 19/25

GroupB:
Eventide Soujourner - 21.5/25
Slimytrout - 21.5/25
Hemlock - DQ (would score 20/25)