Why Dictate of Karametra over the other mana doubling options? On paper anyway, flash doesn't seem to make up for being a universal doubler rather than a self-only mana doubler. For one more mana you get Mana Reflection which has the added benefit of doubling your mana rock's and mana dork's mana too which is especially crazy with fast manafacts, and going infinite with Grim Monolith. It also goes infinite with Mana Vault (during your upkeep so it's only occassionally useful) and Basalt Monolith (not in your list).
It's likely your perspective is being biased by this.
Of course it is. I identified a problem, and I'm trying to mitigate it. It's okay to be biased when you're trying to correct a problem you're actively observing. Overall playability needs to be prioritized higher, and mana-fixing lands need to be more readily available. That's the goal. Not a bias, but a problem that needs correcting.
This really isn't true. It's not very relevant to your situation anymore since you've already made your decision, but if you're curious and would like to discuss, we can do so through PM. I don't want to muck up your thread with unrelated discussion.
No, it simply means that when the focus lies on creating an environment that can thrive in 2-4 player formats, perhaps we need to be even more critical of the quantity of gold cards that are included.
Sure, you'll get no disagreement from me there. I'm not arguing multicolored over monocolored/colorless. I'm arguing analytical perspectives, and in this case, for more than one. You have been really focused on a particular aspect of the cards lately. It's likely your perspective is being biased by this. My suggestion was a means to help you sidestep any biases. Approach the problem from an angle different from the direction you have been approaching it to see if that makes a difference. The suggestion was specific to this context. I might suggest the opposite to someone like ahadabans who focuses primarily on card interactions.
It doesn't really matter how much more powerful the gold card is over the colorless card if I can't cast the gold card.
By that logic you shouldn't be running any gold cards. You've been really focused on the possibility a card can be played in any given deck lately. I'm not telling you not to consider that, I'm saying it shouldn't be your primary criteria. How powerful, and more importantly, how unique/desirable a card is does matter because once it's out of the cube, the option is gone.
Control does get better use of those lands, but they're playable everywhere. When you need mana fixing, you need mana fixing. And the smaller the playgoup is, the harder it becomes to get enough of it together. Right now, it's mathematically improbable for players in a 4-6 man draft setting to get anywhere near an appropriate number of mana sources for even their 2 color deck. Better yet Winston/Sealed!
And it's not like there are 10 more fixing lands on deck (1 for each combination) that can be used for colored mana on T1 either. I can get 5 together, but not 10. And they're more limited in application than the Vivids are. Again, the average 2-color fixer will see play in about 10% of the decks, and each Vivid is playable in about 4x as many decks. I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of how important it is to provide more universal fixing or provide more guild-specific fixing. I think (but I could be wrong here) that it would better serve the cube to have fewer extra lands that are playable in more decks than more extra lands that are playable in fewer decks. With the added bonus of changing 5 gold cards for 5 colorless cards at the same.
That is a really good point and colors me convinced. I'd say the universal fixing is more important given your goal. I wonder if 5 cards will make the difference you're looking for. If you guys are that desperate, Tarnished Citadel, the Rupture Spires, etc. might be worth including as well.
Another option is to increase the size of the draft pool when you Winston. I think this change will fix the problem with Sealed.
3.) Most colorless sections could easily stand to lose a few cards, so this is probably the easiest place to start trimming. Even in the tightest 360 list, there's still going to be a few artifacts on the chopping block.
^^^^^
This is true actually.
Two things:
Ignoring how many decks a card is playable in, how do the cards you would cut from monocolored and colorless compare to your guild cuts on effect alone? Only consider how many decks can play the cards after because the more difficult to cast guild cards might be worth keeping from that perspective (especially since better fixing means better splashing).
I don't support only including vivids since control gets more value out of them than aggro. They really are sweet fixing though, but if you're going to include more fixing, it should not favor any one or two theatres over any others unless there is already an imbalance and this would help fix it.
I would argue the opposite. By removing one very linear archetype, I added in a tempo strategy that can go UU/x in all 4 potential colors, basically cutting 1 deck to add in 4. The artifact deck was almost exclusively UB/r, and while competitive, it was a very cookie-cutter build. You draft artifacts and the artifacts matter cards. With tempo, there's a wide variety of interchangeable parts that can be used successfully with all four other colors. Building aggro-control decks and tempo decks alike. And maybe even a mono-blue beatdown deck!
I can see a criticism in perhaps lowering the overall powerlevel of the cube because some of the narrow but powerful cards were removed in favor of a more easily thrown together deck, but cutting something broad for something linear ...is the opposite of what I've done here.
Thanks for the feedback!
That's really interesting. Because I don't include heavy support for an "artifact deck," many of our artifact centric cards are used as substrategies to support other archetypes, like the two decks I mentioned, and only come together for a full artifact.dec very rarely. I thought something similar would definitely be the case in a cube that has more artifact support since there would be a greater variety of options to be creative with, but it sounds like the opposite is true. It sounds like all of the options funnel the drafter toward a single strategy; probably because that strategy is so powerful when it comes together. That's fascinating.
However, that also means that you're probably right about the variety the tempo package will bring, which is fortunate in some ways, and unfortunate in others.
Cool update. There are some great looking swaps here.
Cutting Go for the Throat seems fine to me. You still have a good number of tageted removal effects in black, even if many of them aren't as efficient as GftT. I personally would pick one of the others, but that's a matter of taste, so I can support your reasoning behind that cut. I would watch to make sure your -X/-X spells are doing everything you need them to do though in GftT's absence.
The only thing that concerns me about these changes is the wide variety of deck strategies that are being removed for something that appears fairly linear. Blue tempo generally takes 2 different forms in my cube: Creature heavy tempo (aggressive midrange), or spell heavy tempo (aggro-control). All of the parts of the arifact deck can come togethether to create a cohesive artifect.dec, but these pieces can also come together in part to create a wide variety of substrategies like Welder/Reanimator, or Academy/Upheaval. This is just another thing to keep an eye on, and not a right or wrong kind of thing. It may turn out these changes provide just as wide a variety of substrategies as the artifact package. But then again, maybe not, and maybe your group is okay with that.
Dude, have you played Bonfire? The card is ridiculous.
Yeah, I've played with Bonfire, though not a lot. Maybe I'll give it a run in my cube to get more experience with it.
And Pyromancer has been playing really well. It's quite uncommon for him to not make at least 1-2 tokens, and pretty quick after resolving. It's far from "torturously slow".
*shrug. Even allowing for that I just don't see the appeal, but that's okay.
I'm suprised you would keep Bonfire of the Damned, or Young Pyromancer over Fireslinger. Granted, I'll be cutting Fireslinger from my own cube with this update to get Firebolt back in there, but Slinger is still a solid dude in my 360, where Bonfire seems a touch inconsistent, and Pyromancer torturously slow.
I may have evaluated Ghor-Clan Rampager the wrong way. I viewed it as a solid 4cc creature that had an okay pump option as a secondary mode. But the more I thought about the value of the pump mode, the more I thought it was by far the stronger half of the card. Similarly to evaluating Krosan Tusker as a creature instead of a spell, it can really warp your opinion of a card. Comparing it to existing pump spells, the trample really provides a huge bonus, and the +4 on the toughness is also really relevant. I now see it as a vastly improved Colossal Might with a secondary solid creature option if your board is light. I'm always looking for additional playable pump and reach, and this guy can really be both of those things. The pump mode isn't far from the 4 player damage mode of Boros Charm. I'm going to give it some extended playtime in the cube, and treat it like a 2cc spell instead of a 4cc creature. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, and this can certainly be one of those cases.
I've been having much the same thoughts about Rampager.
I was just messing with you dude. We're really happy with 540. I'd like some more good 1-drops, but for most of our drafts, the numbers are more than satisfactory.
I hope you're not implying that I designed my cube on a whim, without knowing what's best for my playgroup's needs.
Of course not. We may not always agree, but I don't feel the need to insult you. I was offering a line of thought that approached the problem from a different angle. It's always possible it hadn't occurred to you in this moment, or you had already dismissed it, but may earn reconsideration on hearing it from another source. That's what these boards are for.
We play 4-mans a fair amount. We also play a lot of Winston and a lot of 6-man drafts. So averaging it out to 4 makes sense for our group.
If you don't often play with over 8 players, then why have a cube designed to support 10+? You could probably meet the needs of your group better by reducing the cube size.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
This really isn't true. It's not very relevant to your situation anymore since you've already made your decision, but if you're curious and would like to discuss, we can do so through PM. I don't want to muck up your thread with unrelated discussion.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Sure, you'll get no disagreement from me there. I'm not arguing multicolored over monocolored/colorless. I'm arguing analytical perspectives, and in this case, for more than one. You have been really focused on a particular aspect of the cards lately. It's likely your perspective is being biased by this. My suggestion was a means to help you sidestep any biases. Approach the problem from an angle different from the direction you have been approaching it to see if that makes a difference. The suggestion was specific to this context. I might suggest the opposite to someone like ahadabans who focuses primarily on card interactions.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
By that logic you shouldn't be running any gold cards. You've been really focused on the possibility a card can be played in any given deck lately. I'm not telling you not to consider that, I'm saying it shouldn't be your primary criteria. How powerful, and more importantly, how unique/desirable a card is does matter because once it's out of the cube, the option is gone.
That is a really good point and colors me convinced. I'd say the universal fixing is more important given your goal. I wonder if 5 cards will make the difference you're looking for. If you guys are that desperate, Tarnished Citadel, the Rupture Spires, etc. might be worth including as well.
Another option is to increase the size of the draft pool when you Winston. I think this change will fix the problem with Sealed.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
^^^^^
This is true actually.
Two things:
Ignoring how many decks a card is playable in, how do the cards you would cut from monocolored and colorless compare to your guild cuts on effect alone? Only consider how many decks can play the cards after because the more difficult to cast guild cards might be worth keeping from that perspective (especially since better fixing means better splashing).
I don't support only including vivids since control gets more value out of them than aggro. They really are sweet fixing though, but if you're going to include more fixing, it should not favor any one or two theatres over any others unless there is already an imbalance and this would help fix it.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
That's really interesting. Because I don't include heavy support for an "artifact deck," many of our artifact centric cards are used as substrategies to support other archetypes, like the two decks I mentioned, and only come together for a full artifact.dec very rarely. I thought something similar would definitely be the case in a cube that has more artifact support since there would be a greater variety of options to be creative with, but it sounds like the opposite is true. It sounds like all of the options funnel the drafter toward a single strategy; probably because that strategy is so powerful when it comes together. That's fascinating.
However, that also means that you're probably right about the variety the tempo package will bring, which is fortunate in some ways, and unfortunate in others.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Cutting Go for the Throat seems fine to me. You still have a good number of tageted removal effects in black, even if many of them aren't as efficient as GftT. I personally would pick one of the others, but that's a matter of taste, so I can support your reasoning behind that cut. I would watch to make sure your -X/-X spells are doing everything you need them to do though in GftT's absence.
The only thing that concerns me about these changes is the wide variety of deck strategies that are being removed for something that appears fairly linear. Blue tempo generally takes 2 different forms in my cube: Creature heavy tempo (aggressive midrange), or spell heavy tempo (aggro-control). All of the parts of the arifact deck can come togethether to create a cohesive artifect.dec, but these pieces can also come together in part to create a wide variety of substrategies like Welder/Reanimator, or Academy/Upheaval. This is just another thing to keep an eye on, and not a right or wrong kind of thing. It may turn out these changes provide just as wide a variety of substrategies as the artifact package. But then again, maybe not, and maybe your group is okay with that.
My 2 cents.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Yeah, I've played with Bonfire, though not a lot. Maybe I'll give it a run in my cube to get more experience with it.
*shrug. Even allowing for that I just don't see the appeal, but that's okay.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
I've been having much the same thoughts about Rampager.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Haha, well played.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Of course not. We may not always agree, but I don't feel the need to insult you. I was offering a line of thought that approached the problem from a different angle. It's always possible it hadn't occurred to you in this moment, or you had already dismissed it, but may earn reconsideration on hearing it from another source. That's what these boards are for.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
If you don't often play with over 8 players, then why have a cube designed to support 10+? You could probably meet the needs of your group better by reducing the cube size.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor