I agree that Izzet Charm, Abrade and Collective Brutality are all great Cube cards. Something they all have in common is that they cost 2 mana to remove a card, which is an acceptable rate, just like the Quench and Naturalize example from before. While the specific effects are overcosted, in practice countering something with Quench or Counterspell doesn't make a difference, when it's live it works all the same. Obviously Counterspell is way better because it always works, but the rate is the same. Killing something with the red X-spell will usually cost a disproportionate amount of mana. It's flexible, but not efficient mana-wise.
What function does a Reach Through Mists have? It gets you closer to the relevant cards in your deck when the land isn't what you want. With these new cards, you're banking that the spell part is something that is actually useful, and I think often it won't be, because it's so inefficient or narrow. I think for example Censor is several leagues better than the dual type version because it has actual relevance in the late game, covering the spell part's main weakness. Cycling is a proven great mechanic, and I think this new one can be great too (even for Cube) but only if the spell sides are efficient enough.
That being said, it seems pretty obvious nobody's switching sides here Time will tell!
- The 'you get both' aspect of manlands and utility lands continues to be significantly undervalued, imo. These cards are often actual sources of card advantage because you don't have to choose (see Shelldock Isle). You make land drops, trade resources with the opponent, and parity is eventually broken because your lands still do something relevant. These new dual types can only mirror part of that, making them significantly worse in a lot of scenarios.
- I think most would agree that save a few exceptions, the spell sides of these dual type cards aren't really cubable because they are not powerful enough (and obviously not the land part by itself either). Thus the power present in the card comes solely from the flexibility, the increase in keepable hands, the mitigating the risk of flooding out. But will including cards like these in your deck lead to more wins? Not necessarily. You'll keep more hands, and also play more monocolored tapped lands and overcosted spells, which are real costs well proven to lose games.
- There is actual precedent for these cards (or pretty damn close to it), and I don't really understand the aversion to compare the two. Lonely Sandbar is either a tapped Island, or a Reach Through Mists. Yes, you lose Island synergy and it doesn't count as a spell, which makes it a little worse (though you do get the actually great Loam interaction). Reach Through Mists is overcosted by 1 to be cubable, a tax I've seen here advertised as reasonable. Who runs Lonely Sandbar? I actually really like the card, but a tapped Island instead of an untapped one is such a huge liability that they don't make it.
- This part comes more down to how you look at Cube as a format. I think of my Cube as a way of drafting things that look like Constructed decks, where others have described Cube as closer to retail Limited with nothing but Bombs. I just can't see these cards making waves in the formats I mirror my Cube to, Modern and Legacy. Decks are crazy consistent, and efficiency is king. This is what I want for my Cube, and I know others don't want that, but it explains why these double types will likely never make it in my Cube (save those where the spell side is Constructed worthy by itself). They simply can't play an essential role in the decks I try to draft, these slick Constructed-like killing machines.
- Similar to my last point, in Limited consistency is worth a lot. In Constructed I feel you have to actually do something powerful, and games end way more often with one player holding a bunch of irrelevant cards. I've found especially in recent years that board advantage is crucial in Cube (power creep and especially planeswalkers have contributed to this), and to get board advantage you need to be fast, or strong. These cards are neither, as they are always slow (tapped or overcosted) and the spell side is weak by design.
I've found this whole discussion somewhat frustrating as I seem pretty fully convinced of my side of it, and it looks like the other side feels the same way. Maybe my Cube (and how I think about Cube in general) has evolved in a completely different direction, and therefore I operate with a different set of values. Nonetheless I think there's some value in trying to explain why I think these cards aren't nearly as good as advertised by some, simply because it's the opposite viewpoint compared to that shared by many.
I must say I'm very intrigued how these lands will pan out. I often disagree with forum users about the power level of cards (and usually, I think a card is less good than people say it is), but seldom to this extent. I'd play one of these cards only if the spell side was playable in its own right, like I think Quench and Naturalize are. If it's not a decent rate, I don't see it. The green creature for instance is probably pretty good (the 3/3 landfall) because I'd gladly play that on its own, making the land part pure upside. But a three mana Regrowth? I also think Cycling is better than the ability to play something as a tapped land, because often neither a land or the spell is good enough! And I see that happening a LOT with these cards, a monocolor land that ETB tapped is awful and the spell side is overcosted. I'm so far on the other side of this argument that it's getting pretty lonely
What function does a Reach Through Mists have? It gets you closer to the relevant cards in your deck when the land isn't what you want. With these new cards, you're banking that the spell part is something that is actually useful, and I think often it won't be, because it's so inefficient or narrow. I think for example Censor is several leagues better than the dual type version because it has actual relevance in the late game, covering the spell part's main weakness. Cycling is a proven great mechanic, and I think this new one can be great too (even for Cube) but only if the spell sides are efficient enough.
That being said, it seems pretty obvious nobody's switching sides here Time will tell!
- The 'you get both' aspect of manlands and utility lands continues to be significantly undervalued, imo. These cards are often actual sources of card advantage because you don't have to choose (see Shelldock Isle). You make land drops, trade resources with the opponent, and parity is eventually broken because your lands still do something relevant. These new dual types can only mirror part of that, making them significantly worse in a lot of scenarios.
- I think most would agree that save a few exceptions, the spell sides of these dual type cards aren't really cubable because they are not powerful enough (and obviously not the land part by itself either). Thus the power present in the card comes solely from the flexibility, the increase in keepable hands, the mitigating the risk of flooding out. But will including cards like these in your deck lead to more wins? Not necessarily. You'll keep more hands, and also play more monocolored tapped lands and overcosted spells, which are real costs well proven to lose games.
- There is actual precedent for these cards (or pretty damn close to it), and I don't really understand the aversion to compare the two. Lonely Sandbar is either a tapped Island, or a Reach Through Mists. Yes, you lose Island synergy and it doesn't count as a spell, which makes it a little worse (though you do get the actually great Loam interaction). Reach Through Mists is overcosted by 1 to be cubable, a tax I've seen here advertised as reasonable. Who runs Lonely Sandbar? I actually really like the card, but a tapped Island instead of an untapped one is such a huge liability that they don't make it.
- This part comes more down to how you look at Cube as a format. I think of my Cube as a way of drafting things that look like Constructed decks, where others have described Cube as closer to retail Limited with nothing but Bombs. I just can't see these cards making waves in the formats I mirror my Cube to, Modern and Legacy. Decks are crazy consistent, and efficiency is king. This is what I want for my Cube, and I know others don't want that, but it explains why these double types will likely never make it in my Cube (save those where the spell side is Constructed worthy by itself). They simply can't play an essential role in the decks I try to draft, these slick Constructed-like killing machines.
- Similar to my last point, in Limited consistency is worth a lot. In Constructed I feel you have to actually do something powerful, and games end way more often with one player holding a bunch of irrelevant cards. I've found especially in recent years that board advantage is crucial in Cube (power creep and especially planeswalkers have contributed to this), and to get board advantage you need to be fast, or strong. These cards are neither, as they are always slow (tapped or overcosted) and the spell side is weak by design.
I've found this whole discussion somewhat frustrating as I seem pretty fully convinced of my side of it, and it looks like the other side feels the same way. Maybe my Cube (and how I think about Cube in general) has evolved in a completely different direction, and therefore I operate with a different set of values. Nonetheless I think there's some value in trying to explain why I think these cards aren't nearly as good as advertised by some, simply because it's the opposite viewpoint compared to that shared by many.