I still update all of my cubes on both Cobra and Tutor. I'll upload the final average list to both sites. I think there are things I like more about CubeTutor than CubeCobra, but overall prefer CubeCobra these days for most of my cube management needs.
I look at the average list on CubeTutor way more often throughout the year, though. It's nice to see the tag color definitions right at the top in list view and filtering the cube down to a certain size or seeing only specifically tagged cards is much easier.
It's looking like we're going to end up with just over 40 lists this year, which is pretty awesome. I totally understand the issue with the color tags on both Tutor and Cobra. I've normally done three groups per color, but with 40+ lists, the sites may not offer that many color tags. Is there a preference in color order (or choices) that is the most helpful for everyone?
@n00b: Link your CubeCobra. Your sig only points to CubeTutor.
I could probably do scripts (I work in IT and live inside spreadsheets all day), but I honestly don't. I just copy/paste the lists then do some comparisons at the end. Once I'm done, I'll post up the spreadsheet I'm working from as a Google doc so everyone has access to all of the data.
For rare lands, I do agree that if enough folks have resorted to rares for fixing that it should be represented. However, based on what I've seen so far, there's not really a general consensus as to *which* rare lands are appropriate for peasant power levels. Some folks are on RAV shocks, some are on pains, some are on manlands, and some are on a mixture of all of the above. I may note in the final count that X out of Y cubes run rare lands, just to give folks an idea of how many people are choosing to do that.
As to how solved the format is, I don't know. I think if you take the top 360 cards from the average list, you'd end up with a pretty "solved" format as far as archetypes and playability. The truth of the matter is that cube (of all shapes and sizes) is much more complicated than that, though. Your group might have pet cards or archetypes you love. You may want to try out an archetype that's maybe not as popular like say UB Ninjas or Persist Combo.
I think where we are right now for peasant cubes, you can probably build a really tight powerful archetype based 450 list at peasant. You'd have room to support the usual suspects as well as include your faves. When you start getting into 540+ range at peasant, you end up with a lot of really low power level (for cube) cards that are essentially just limited all stars. I'm still on 360 and I had plenty of room to throw in support for persist combo and not feel like I lost much in the way of powerful cards.
Anyway, thank you all for the discussion and keeping this thread active. I just realized I've been on this site for 14 years. Good lord. What have I done with my life? LOL
That's true. I've avoided using true peasant+ cubes. That feels like a completely different format to me. I see rare lands kind of the same as the un/conspiracy cards. You know if you want them and you know which ones you want to use. I'll include cubes that run rare lands, but I won't include those lands in the final list. I think everyone in the peasant cube building business pretty much knows the hierarchy of true peasant fixing options. I am interested to see where the Thriving cycle falls this year, or if it even makes the cut.
This goes back to what this average list is really trying to be for the community. It's not what your cube should look like, but more of a helpful tool for deciding on cuts, swaps, and potential missed gems. If you see that you're running cards in your 360 that don't make even the average 720 (and I definitely am), that doesn't mean you're somehow wrong for running those cards. You can either look at those as cards for potential swaps or you know why you run them are happy with their performance.
@MechanicalMech: In previous years the only things I've excluded are Conspiracies and Un-cards. I didn't exclude lists for running them, I just didn't include them in the final list. However, I think I'm going to forego that exclusion this year. You know if you want to include those cards in your list and seeing where they fall in the "average" cube might prove helpful to folks looking for which cards are popular.
The only true "criteria" I have for including lists is that they be updated within the last few months, at least with M21. Preferably the list is also at least 360 cards, but finely tuned smaller lists are acceptable as long as they meet the update requirements.
Peasant cube friends! It's that time of year again to see where we are in our peasant cube journeys. 2020 may have been quite the terrible year, but we got some pretty sweet stuff for our cubes. I titled this thread as planning because I'm looking to make my life a bit easier and ask folks to post their lists here if they want to be included in the comparison. The only thing I ask is that the cube is relatively up to date. Preferably that would be through ZNR, but M21 is acceptable. I'll still go on the hunt and try to find as many up to date lists as I can, but if the lists come to me, that's all the better. We had just over 30 lists last year. I'd like to get up to 40 to compare this year. More data is certainly not a bad thing!
I also put the call out on Twitter. I know this is the "MTGS" Average Peasant List, but let's face it, these forums aren't seeing nearly the same amount of traffic they once saw. If you know a peasant cuber that keeps up with their cube, but doesn't post here, send them to my Twitter feed (link in sig) with a link to their list!
I hope to start on this sooner rather than later. I normally knock this out during my annual December staycation from work. This year that starts Dec 7, so worst case I'll have it done and posted by the end of that week.
Cheers, friends, and I look forward to seeing what 2020 gave us (other than crippling depression, anyway).