To be fair, the other half is much, much more likely to see play in a nonblue deck.
Even still, I haven't drafted a deck that I can even remember that would've played this card without both casting options available.
Quote from fooligan »
I guess you could call it an edict with some serious opportunity bonus when also playing blue. Umm there's also a build around me aspect to drafting it where any opportunity to get painless multicolor fixing goes up, but everyone always wants to be in blue anyway right?
I would call it a Dimir card. And yes, playing blue is always good.
I still like shadowmage quite a bit but I've found myself staring at tog in packs and wondering what you can still do with him for ages. In tighter powered cubes your mileage may vary.
I wouldn't ever put this card into a deck without both blue and black mana available to me. That makes it a blue/black card, plain and simple.
It should be classified like a gold card because I need to be playing both colors in order to draft it.
Pretending it can hack it as a blue or black card would be the only decision that's disingenuous.
I don't understand people who don't get this.
Yes it can get blurry in hypotheticals (and maybe a couple of real instances) but when the cards are literally uncubable without both parts you're virtually lying to yourself and definitely hurting your cube. If only a little.
I don't understand people who don't get this.
Yes it can get blurry in hypotheticals (and maybe a couple of real instances) but when the cards are literally uncubable without both parts you're virtually lying to yourself and definitely hurting your cube. If only a little.
I wouldn't say it hurts your cube, if you want to play a card then you can play it, it doesn't matter how you classify it because in the draft it doesn't really matter (as long as you don't use the entire cube in the draft). If you're going for power maximization then including this card in a mono section is most likely flawed. But if you're going for a different idea of what cube is then this card can certainly be wherever it wants.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to Cube but don't have one? Check the map if anyone is in your area and get cubing!
It is clear from this thread that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of a multicolor card is and its effect on the draft format and our ability to evaluate it for inclusion. Effectively we have a card that has three modes -- all of which are reasonable on their own -- that is being evaluated as though it were a plain old UB card.
I have seen a good number of people in this thread say they wouldn't touch certain pseudo-multicolor cards like Lingering Souls, Daybreak Ranger, or even off-color signets without being able to utilize the entirety of the cards' abilities. This is the kind of logic that has kept hybrid in our multicolor sections for years and simply ignoring the role they actually play in our list so we can maintain some semblance of balance. I not only disagree with the notion that these cards are unplayable in decks without access to off-color flashblack or secondary abilities, but also that evaluating them assuming you can't play them without those modes is, with all due respect, shortsighted and not a fair evaluation criteria.
Why is the emphasis always on mana cost, and color instead of function? How can I be bashed for wanting to pit Far // Away, a 1U bounce spell with two big bonuses, against Into the Roil, Cyclonic Rift, or Vapor Snag, but be told I'm incorrect for not wanting to put it up against something like Shadowmage Infiltrator or Psychatog which are completely and utterly different on every possible level?
Because if I were just running Lingering Souls with just white part, I would rather run any other white card in my cube over it? Same with Unburial Rites. And if I were planning to play them as only black card, they are just plain horrible.
Organizing it by how it would see plays IS focusing on function. You are looking at how the card at how well it will function in a particular deck of that color combination versus how it will function in the rest of the deck without those color combination.
Far is only possible be better than Into the Roil, Cyclonic Rift, or Vapor Snag if you have access to black mana. Hence it's B/U card. As a U card, those 3 are all far better.
EDIT: Otherwise, if you think you'll play Far in your non blue/black deck over ANY blue card in your cube, go and run unsummon instead of them, as unsummon is better than simply Far.
It is clear from this thread that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of a multicolor card is and its effect on the draft format and our ability to evaluate it for inclusion. Effectively we have a card that has three modes -- all of which are reasonable on their own -- that is being evaluated as though it were a plain old UB card.
I have seen a good number of people in this thread say they wouldn't touch certain pseudo-multicolor cards like Lingering Souls, Daybreak Ranger, or even off-color signets without being able to utilize the entirety of the cards' abilities. This is the kind of logic that has kept hybrid in our multicolor sections for years and simply ignoring the role they actually play in our list so we can maintain some semblance of balance. I not only disagree with the notion that these cards are unplayable in decks without access to off-color flashblack or secondary abilities, but also that evaluating them assuming you can't play them without those modes is, with all due respect, shortsighted and not a fair evaluation criteria.
Why is the emphasis always on mana cost, and color instead of function? How can I be bashed for wanting to pit Far // Away, a 1U bounce spell with two big bonuses, against Into the Roil, Cyclonic Rift, or Vapor Snag, but be told I'm incorrect for not wanting to put it up against something like Shadowmage Infiltrator or Psychatog which are completely and utterly different on every possible level?
You're way makes drafting more interesting because now there is a card that can go in both a blue deck or a black deck, so it isn't a multicolor card in the sense that you don't need the other color to play it. This makes drafting more intense because there are more options available to drafters. But where I come to a disagreement is thinking that a blue drafter that's not in black will actually take and play far//away. I don't see how someone would want to pay 2 mana for a bounce spell with an upside that can't be used in their deck. You say that this card has 3 great options but you lose 2 of them if you only have one color. Meaning it's not versatile anymore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to Cube but don't have one? Check the map if anyone is in your area and get cubing!
It is clear from this thread that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of a multicolor card is and its effect on the draft format and our ability to evaluate it for inclusion. Effectively we have a card that has three modes -- all of which are reasonable on their own -- that is being evaluated as though it were a plain old UB card.
i think neither of the monocolor options are reasonable on their own. are you running unsummon in your cube? because it's better than the blue side of this card. you honestly don't see how this belongs in the dimir section if my playgroup is never, ever going to put this in a deck without both colors of mana?
I have seen a good number of people in this thread say they wouldn't touch certain pseudo-multicolor cards like Lingering Souls, Daybreak Ranger, or even off-color signets without being able to utilize the entirety of the cards' abilities. This is the kind of logic that has kept hybrid in our multicolor sections for years and simply ignoring the role they actually play in our list so we can maintain some semblance of balance.
in my experience, kitchen finks regularly goes into nonwhite and nongreen decks. souls never goes into decks without access to black. these have absolutely nothing to do with each other. one is an instance of a card being playable in decks of two colors because of its casting cost. the other is a case of you disagreeing on the playability of a 3cc one time token maker.
Why is the emphasis always on mana cost, and color instead of function?
i feel like i should be asking you this question. in my experience, hybrids like finks and redcap function in drafting and deckbuilding like pure hybrids. cards like souls and this card function like gold because neither side is playable on its own. you just disagree with the power level of those effects.
How can I be bashed
you're not being bashed. you're being disagreed with.
When I see Healing Salve, I'm often like "Oh girl, I wish I could turn every card into this." Thanks they removed the gain life part, otherwise this would have been broken.
I wouldn't say it hurts your cube, if you want to play a card then you can play it, it doesn't matter how you classify it because in the draft it doesn't really matter (as long as you don't use the entire cube in the draft). If you're going for power maximization then including this card in a mono section is most likely flawed. But if you're going for a different idea of what cube is then this card can certainly be wherever it wants.
I'm trying to classify cards as "honestly" as possible, getting as close to how it's actually drafted and played as possible. This card cannot go "wherever it wants", it's not a WR card. I don't classify Llanowar Elves as a red card either. It's not about power maximization, it's about balance.
This is the kind of logic that has kept hybrid in our multicolor sections for years and simply ignoring the role they actually play in our list so we can maintain some semblance of balance.
First off, sorry for cutting your statement apart, that is a little unfair, but I do want to address different parts of your paragraph separately.
Hybrid is not multicolor, and it's been in there for too long. I don't know who initially said "hey wait, Kitchen Finks is totally not the same as Qasali Pridemage", but it's certainly very smart. I'm just trying to extend that to other cards, other cases: Looking at what the card does, and not what it says on the card.
I not only disagree with the notion that these cards are unplayable in decks without access to off-color flashblack or secondary abilities, but also that evaluating them assuming you can't play them without those modes is, with all due respect, shortsighted and not a fair evaluation criteria.
I call a 1U Unsummon unplayable. Yes, you can theoretically cast it, but especially not in cube where every last pick can be a first pick. 99% of the time, if not more, it's not played. We cut cards like that from our cubes.
Why is the emphasis always on mana cost, and color instead of function? How can I be bashed for wanting to pit Far // Away, a 1U bounce spell with two big bonuses, against Into the Roil, Cyclonic Rift, or Vapor Snag, but be told I'm incorrect for not wanting to put it up against something like Shadowmage Infiltrator or Psychatog which are completely and utterly different on every possible level?
For the same reason that Lightning Bolt is not pitted against Swords to Plowshares: They don't compete for the same spot. I'm being a little game theorist here: If a strategy (maindecking it with only one color available) is strictly dominated by another (maindecking another card), you can basically ignore it.
Note that I agree with you in principle: Not every split card (with or without Fuse) should automatically be put in multicolor. If it is realistically and reasonably used with only one color available, it acts like a hybrid card and should be put there. In this particular case, however, the single modes are too weak and therefore will hardly ever be maindecked, are irrelevant, and should be ignored.
Quick example to finish it all off:
Kird Monkey
R
0/1
Kicker G
If Kird Monkey was kicked, it enters the battlefield with 3 +1/+1 counters on it and has trample.
That's plainly a RG card to me. It will be drafted, maindecked and played only by decks that are both red AND green, unlike Goblin Guide, which is drafted, maindecked and played by decks that are red. This behaves like a RG card in every aspect (go away, Guardian of the Guildpact) and thus I classify it as one. Now, that's an extreme example. There are other cases where things are a lot less clear, and you can certainly argue about every single case, all I'm essentially saying is that the monocolored cases are so marginal that I feel it's more "honest" to ignore them.
Specialities about the cube: U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
Has there ever been a thread about a card that is gold, but not strictly multicolor on these boards that hasn't ended in this discussion?
This horse is about as dead as they come. The same arguments have been heard dozens of times and everyone involved is about as stubborn and set on his own way to be the only correct one that there will never come anything useful from repeating this non-issue over and over and over.
*sigh*
You can go as far as you want, but you'll never get away from the multicolor debate
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to Cube but don't have one? Check the map if anyone is in your area and get cubing!
It is clear from this thread that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of a multicolor card is and its effect on the draft format and our ability to evaluate it for inclusion.
Effectively we have a card that has three modes -- all of which are reasonable on their own -- that is being evaluated as though it were a plain old UB card.
The card only has three modes if it's played in a UB deck.
I have seen a good number of people in this thread say they wouldn't touch certain pseudo-multicolor cards like Lingering Souls, Daybreak Ranger, or even off-color signets without being able to utilize the entirety of the cards' abilities.
None of those cards are good enough unless you're getting full value out of them. At least, not enough for our cube decks.
You would play Daybreak Ranger without access to red mana in the same deck? What about Turn/Burn? Would you play Turn without access to red? Or this spell without access to black? With all due respect, what kinds of cube decks are you drafting where any of those plays are remotely worthy of being maindecked?
This is the kind of logic that has kept hybrid in our multicolor sections for years and simply ignoring the role they actually play in our list so we can maintain some semblance of balance.
I don't have a gold section. I have a guild section. All the cards that benefit from being played in decks of the matching guild go in there. Every opportunity I have to cut a more narrow gold card with a flexible hybrid card (or split card) is an added benefit, because the card is more playable. If we can have cards like Savannah Lions and Wrath of God in the same section (even though they never go in the same decks and are completely functionally different), I can have Fire // Ice and Izzet Charm in the same section. We classify them by either form, function or where they play best, and then we slot them into the best category we have for them.
I not only disagree with the notion that these cards are unplayable in decks without access to off-color flashblack or secondary abilities, but also that evaluating them assuming you can't play them without those modes is, with all due respect, shortsighted and not a fair evaluation criteria.
I don't think there's another way to evaluate them. If I won't play the card in a deck without both blue and black mana available, comparing it to other cards with those same restrictions seems perfectly logical. In fact, not comparing them against other cards with the same restrictions would be a shortsighted unfair evaluation.
Why is the emphasis always on mana cost, and color instead of function?
The emphasis IS on function. In order to have access to all three modes, it needs to be in a UB deck. When you evaluate it by function, you need to classify it as a gold card. Classifying it as anything else is ignoring the function of the card.
How can I be bashed for wanting to pit Far // Away, a 1U bounce spell with two big bonuses, against Into the Roil, Cyclonic Rift, or Vapor Snag, but be told I'm incorrect for not wanting to put it up against something like Shadowmage Infiltrator or Psychatog which are completely and utterly different on every possible level?
Because the card is drafted like a UB card. If you won't ever play the card unless you have both blue and black mana available, sorting it as anything other than UB is doing you a disservice.
If you are willing to play Far in a deck without the ability to cast Away or play it in Far/Away form, by all means, put it wherever you want. But I won't. I won't ever play this card in a deck unless I can cast both sides. Which means it's drafted and decked exactly like a UB card.
Sure, it might not get drafted in a deck other than dimir, but it's in play where I think this will play out a bit differently than a gold card. If the aggro deck smashes your one source of blue or black, it still remains playable. Whether or not that make's it cube worthy is another matter, but I do think that if you do play it in UB it's never going to be dead to you being color screwed, and that part of its versatility makes it more like a hybrid than a true gold card.
It can play as a black card or a blue card once it's in your deck. Whatever the game state calls for. That's why the card is good. It has three casting modes once it's in your deck. But if the card isn't drafted or played unless you have both blue and black mana in your deck, it drafts and deckbuilds like a Dimir card. So that's where it should be classified, IMO.
I think it's a really good card. But I think it's a UB card.
Sure, it might not get drafted in a deck other than dimir, but it's in play where I think this will play out a bit differently than a gold card. If the aggro deck smashes your one source of blue or black, it still remains playable. Whether or not that make's it cube worthy is another matter, but I do think that if you do play it in UB it's never going to be dead to you being color screwed, and that part of its versatility makes it more like a hybrid than a true gold card.
When I try to categorize my cards, my goal is balance in drafting. What you say is absolutely true, but it comes into my calculations under "qualities of the card". Its infinite versatility is what makes this card good, but I needn't account for why cards are good in color balancing.
Specialities about the cube: U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
It can play as a black card or a blue card once it's in your deck. Whatever the game state calls for. That's why the card is good. It has three casting modes once it's in your deck. But if the card isn't drafted or played unless you have both blue and black mana in your deck, it drafts and deckbuilds like a Dimir card. So that's where it should be classified, IMO.
I think it's a really good card. But I think it's a UB card.
yeah exactly, there are going to be plenty of situations where just bouncing a guy or just edicting a guy is exactly what you want. But you don't get the choice unless you're running both colors, and the choice is what makes the card good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to Cube but don't have one? Check the map if anyone is in your area and get cubing!
Has there ever been a thread about a card that is gold, but not strictly multicolor on these boards that hasn't ended in this discussion?
This horse is about as dead as they come. The same arguments have been heard dozens of times and everyone involved is about as stubborn and set on his own way to be the only correct one that there will never come anything useful from repeating this non-issue over and over and over.
*sigh*
Agree 100%. It's a boring recycled argument that's always the same information being repeated again and again.
This is what happens when the spoilers slow down for the weekends.
Dunno if I like it better than Recoil. It might well be better for straight-up dealing with creatures, but Recoil has much more game against other card types.
Recoil and this card in a deck would make me feel really cool. Now if I could get a Barrin's Spite into the cube somehow...
I can tell you're joking, but truthfully you are your cube's owner. You can do whatever you want, and if it means taking out a card with a higher objective power level to play with something that directs your drafts/games the way you want them to be drafted/played, you can do that.
It's the same reason I think arguing about where classifying cards is a no-win situation. If you'd rather have Far//Away than a gold card, or a hybrid card, or a black card, or a blue card, or would include it as an 'other' section card... just DO IT. You've made a conscious choice to include it over whichever cards you're taking out for it, and you (and perhaps your playgroup) are the one that determines that that is the best decision for what your cube needs and how it plays.
I read through this thread because I read a tweet from Kranny. Nowadays, I only read few of the many threads here on MTGS, but I still consider it the best available resource for Cube information because contrary to articles and pod-casts that reflect the view of individuals or small groups, it is crowd-sourced information that I get here (of course I have to filter it accordingly). A thread that annoyed Kranny so much sounded promising, and I felt the need to post somewhere that I really hope he does not abandon his quest of bringing new ideas even to a stubborn, conservative group of Cubers. I think it is safe to say that with his passionate support of new and unorthodox strategies, he made Cubing more fun for players on multiple continents.
I understand that discussing color classification is considered beating a dead horse by many, but I think of it as an unsolved (and, in a way, unsolvable) problem and I found the discussion in this thread very interesting. It highlights the differences between gold cards, split cards and hybrid cards and how the classification system the Cube manager chooses impacts a cards chances of inclusion.
The guild system classification makes Far//Away compete against cards like Baleful Strix that are only playable in decks with many blue and many black sources, even though Far//Away is a perfectly good card even if you only have a few black sources in a blue-based deck or a few blue sources in a black-based one. It is difficult to judge how much better that increased flexibility makes a card compared to the raw power and narrowness of another.
On the other hand, if you have Far//Away compete against cards like Into the Roil and Unsummon or Diabolic Edict and Tribute to Hunger, the blue or black half of the card is not as good as other available options - they simply do more for the same cost or are cheaper. What speaks in favor of Far//Away is that it can be both that blue card or that black card, which increases the total amount of available cards for blue-based and black-based decks and the value of lands that let you actually use the other side without hurting your existing mana base like City of Brass or an appropriate dual land. Again, I find it difficult to judge which is better.
Some off-color flashback and kicker spells are quite similar to Far//Away in that regard and I think they are powerful and worth considering. Currently, I choose not to play them over the cheaper, less versatile mono-colored spells unless I include them in the multicolor section (where obviously only very powerful cards like Lingering Souls and Unburial Rites make the cut). This is because I fear that they would either not be played or lead to more decks splashing more colors, which would not correspond with my design principles.
I sure hope Kranny does test Far//Away (and other cards like it) and that he presents his results in an article and/or pod-cast, so that I and others may learn and reevaluate as necessary.
I really don't see what there is for kojiro to take offense at. He and I were having a very reasonable and constructive discussion about whether we would play Far//Away with one side only, which ultimately defines how you include it regardless of system. KBH came in and insulted people who use a particular system. Everyone got over that and went back to the discussion.
I mean, it's impossible to come here (or go to his website) and start saying that someone's system is objectively wrong. It's just not possible, because it's a totally subjective organsation system. There can be no formal logic that leads one to the conclusion that making Far//Away compete in a given section or otherwise is somehow incorrect. It isn't a gold card, a hybrid card, or a blue card. The closest way to a 'perfect' system would be to have a separate 'split' card section. But then... someone would have their panties in a twist because split and fuse cards are mixed. Or that they have different functions between each colour pair's choices. Or different CMCs. It's an infinite regression of pointlessness and pedantry.
Just use the system you like, that your cube group wants to use. Whatever lets you use the cards you want in a manner you consider fair. You can't just get frustrated because other people are using a different system. By all means, point out why you consider yours better, but there is no right and wrong here, and never, ever can be; getting 'frustrated' by this thread because people are making a certain card compete in their particular cube structure, rather than yours - it doesn't help anybody.
Even still, I haven't drafted a deck that I can even remember that would've played this card without both casting options available.
I would call it a Dimir card. And yes, playing blue is always good.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Cube talk, design community and much much more!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I don't understand people who don't get this.
Yes it can get blurry in hypotheticals (and maybe a couple of real instances) but when the cards are literally uncubable without both parts you're virtually lying to yourself and definitely hurting your cube. If only a little.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
I wouldn't say it hurts your cube, if you want to play a card then you can play it, it doesn't matter how you classify it because in the draft it doesn't really matter (as long as you don't use the entire cube in the draft). If you're going for power maximization then including this card in a mono section is most likely flawed. But if you're going for a different idea of what cube is then this card can certainly be wherever it wants.
The Great Cube Map!
My Powered Cube
Draft it here!
I have seen a good number of people in this thread say they wouldn't touch certain pseudo-multicolor cards like Lingering Souls, Daybreak Ranger, or even off-color signets without being able to utilize the entirety of the cards' abilities. This is the kind of logic that has kept hybrid in our multicolor sections for years and simply ignoring the role they actually play in our list so we can maintain some semblance of balance. I not only disagree with the notion that these cards are unplayable in decks without access to off-color flashblack or secondary abilities, but also that evaluating them assuming you can't play them without those modes is, with all due respect, shortsighted and not a fair evaluation criteria.
Why is the emphasis always on mana cost, and color instead of function? How can I be bashed for wanting to pit Far // Away, a 1U bounce spell with two big bonuses, against Into the Roil, Cyclonic Rift, or Vapor Snag, but be told I'm incorrect for not wanting to put it up against something like Shadowmage Infiltrator or Psychatog which are completely and utterly different on every possible level?
Joy of Cubing Podcast
My 600 Card Unpowered Cube
My Combo Cube
Organizing it by how it would see plays IS focusing on function. You are looking at how the card at how well it will function in a particular deck of that color combination versus how it will function in the rest of the deck without those color combination.
Far is only possible be better than Into the Roil, Cyclonic Rift, or Vapor Snag if you have access to black mana. Hence it's B/U card. As a U card, those 3 are all far better.
EDIT: Otherwise, if you think you'll play Far in your non blue/black deck over ANY blue card in your cube, go and run unsummon instead of them, as unsummon is better than simply Far.
My cube
My cube on Cube tutor
I'm OP_Forever. I'll be putting this in my signature for a while so everyone know I change my nickname.
You're way makes drafting more interesting because now there is a card that can go in both a blue deck or a black deck, so it isn't a multicolor card in the sense that you don't need the other color to play it. This makes drafting more intense because there are more options available to drafters. But where I come to a disagreement is thinking that a blue drafter that's not in black will actually take and play far//away. I don't see how someone would want to pay 2 mana for a bounce spell with an upside that can't be used in their deck. You say that this card has 3 great options but you lose 2 of them if you only have one color. Meaning it's not versatile anymore.
The Great Cube Map!
My Powered Cube
Draft it here!
i think neither of the monocolor options are reasonable on their own. are you running unsummon in your cube? because it's better than the blue side of this card. you honestly don't see how this belongs in the dimir section if my playgroup is never, ever going to put this in a deck without both colors of mana?
in my experience, kitchen finks regularly goes into nonwhite and nongreen decks. souls never goes into decks without access to black. these have absolutely nothing to do with each other. one is an instance of a card being playable in decks of two colors because of its casting cost. the other is a case of you disagreeing on the playability of a 3cc one time token maker.
i feel like i should be asking you this question. in my experience, hybrids like finks and redcap function in drafting and deckbuilding like pure hybrids. cards like souls and this card function like gold because neither side is playable on its own. you just disagree with the power level of those effects.
you're not being bashed. you're being disagreed with.
I'm trying to classify cards as "honestly" as possible, getting as close to how it's actually drafted and played as possible. This card cannot go "wherever it wants", it's not a WR card. I don't classify Llanowar Elves as a red card either. It's not about power maximization, it's about balance.
First off, sorry for cutting your statement apart, that is a little unfair, but I do want to address different parts of your paragraph separately.
Hybrid is not multicolor, and it's been in there for too long. I don't know who initially said "hey wait, Kitchen Finks is totally not the same as Qasali Pridemage", but it's certainly very smart. I'm just trying to extend that to other cards, other cases: Looking at what the card does, and not what it says on the card.
I call a 1U Unsummon unplayable. Yes, you can theoretically cast it, but especially not in cube where every last pick can be a first pick. 99% of the time, if not more, it's not played. We cut cards like that from our cubes.
For the same reason that Lightning Bolt is not pitted against Swords to Plowshares: They don't compete for the same spot. I'm being a little game theorist here: If a strategy (maindecking it with only one color available) is strictly dominated by another (maindecking another card), you can basically ignore it.
Note that I agree with you in principle: Not every split card (with or without Fuse) should automatically be put in multicolor. If it is realistically and reasonably used with only one color available, it acts like a hybrid card and should be put there. In this particular case, however, the single modes are too weak and therefore will hardly ever be maindecked, are irrelevant, and should be ignored.
Quick example to finish it all off:
Kird Monkey
R
0/1
Kicker G
If Kird Monkey was kicked, it enters the battlefield with 3 +1/+1 counters on it and has trample.
That's plainly a RG card to me. It will be drafted, maindecked and played only by decks that are both red AND green, unlike Goblin Guide, which is drafted, maindecked and played by decks that are red. This behaves like a RG card in every aspect (go away, Guardian of the Guildpact) and thus I classify it as one. Now, that's an extreme example. There are other cases where things are a lot less clear, and you can certainly argue about every single case, all I'm essentially saying is that the monocolored cases are so marginal that I feel it's more "honest" to ignore them.
450, Peasant*, unpowered**
Specialities about the cube:
U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
You can go as far as you want, but you'll never get away from the multicolor debate
The Great Cube Map!
My Powered Cube
Draft it here!
This was clear long before this thread.
The card only has three modes if it's played in a UB deck.
None of those cards are good enough unless you're getting full value out of them. At least, not enough for our cube decks.
You would play Daybreak Ranger without access to red mana in the same deck? What about Turn/Burn? Would you play Turn without access to red? Or this spell without access to black? With all due respect, what kinds of cube decks are you drafting where any of those plays are remotely worthy of being maindecked?
I don't have a gold section. I have a guild section. All the cards that benefit from being played in decks of the matching guild go in there. Every opportunity I have to cut a more narrow gold card with a flexible hybrid card (or split card) is an added benefit, because the card is more playable. If we can have cards like Savannah Lions and Wrath of God in the same section (even though they never go in the same decks and are completely functionally different), I can have Fire // Ice and Izzet Charm in the same section. We classify them by either form, function or where they play best, and then we slot them into the best category we have for them.
I don't think there's another way to evaluate them. If I won't play the card in a deck without both blue and black mana available, comparing it to other cards with those same restrictions seems perfectly logical. In fact, not comparing them against other cards with the same restrictions would be a shortsighted unfair evaluation.
The emphasis IS on function. In order to have access to all three modes, it needs to be in a UB deck. When you evaluate it by function, you need to classify it as a gold card. Classifying it as anything else is ignoring the function of the card.
Because the card is drafted like a UB card. If you won't ever play the card unless you have both blue and black mana available, sorting it as anything other than UB is doing you a disservice.
If you are willing to play Far in a deck without the ability to cast Away or play it in Far/Away form, by all means, put it wherever you want. But I won't. I won't ever play this card in a deck unless I can cast both sides. Which means it's drafted and decked exactly like a UB card.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I think it's a really good card. But I think it's a UB card.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
When I try to categorize my cards, my goal is balance in drafting. What you say is absolutely true, but it comes into my calculations under "qualities of the card". Its infinite versatility is what makes this card good, but I needn't account for why cards are good in color balancing.
450, Peasant*, unpowered**
Specialities about the cube:
U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
yeah exactly, there are going to be plenty of situations where just bouncing a guy or just edicting a guy is exactly what you want. But you don't get the choice unless you're running both colors, and the choice is what makes the card good.
The Great Cube Map!
My Powered Cube
Draft it here!
Agree 100%. It's a boring recycled argument that's always the same information being repeated again and again.
This is what happens when the spoilers slow down for the weekends.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
360 Modern Cube
Cubetutor
EDH Decks
WGTrostaniWG
WURZedruuWUR
Twitter
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My Cube (DeckStats)
My Pauper Cube: 540 (CubeTutor link!)
Level 1 Judge
Cube talk, design community and much much more!
I can tell you're joking, but truthfully you are your cube's owner. You can do whatever you want, and if it means taking out a card with a higher objective power level to play with something that directs your drafts/games the way you want them to be drafted/played, you can do that.
It's the same reason I think arguing about where classifying cards is a no-win situation. If you'd rather have Far//Away than a gold card, or a hybrid card, or a black card, or a blue card, or would include it as an 'other' section card... just DO IT. You've made a conscious choice to include it over whichever cards you're taking out for it, and you (and perhaps your playgroup) are the one that determines that that is the best decision for what your cube needs and how it plays.
My Cube Blog @theCubeMiser on Twitter
Amen brother.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I understand that discussing color classification is considered beating a dead horse by many, but I think of it as an unsolved (and, in a way, unsolvable) problem and I found the discussion in this thread very interesting. It highlights the differences between gold cards, split cards and hybrid cards and how the classification system the Cube manager chooses impacts a cards chances of inclusion.
The guild system classification makes Far//Away compete against cards like Baleful Strix that are only playable in decks with many blue and many black sources, even though Far//Away is a perfectly good card even if you only have a few black sources in a blue-based deck or a few blue sources in a black-based one. It is difficult to judge how much better that increased flexibility makes a card compared to the raw power and narrowness of another.
On the other hand, if you have Far//Away compete against cards like Into the Roil and Unsummon or Diabolic Edict and Tribute to Hunger, the blue or black half of the card is not as good as other available options - they simply do more for the same cost or are cheaper. What speaks in favor of Far//Away is that it can be both that blue card or that black card, which increases the total amount of available cards for blue-based and black-based decks and the value of lands that let you actually use the other side without hurting your existing mana base like City of Brass or an appropriate dual land. Again, I find it difficult to judge which is better.
Some off-color flashback and kicker spells are quite similar to Far//Away in that regard and I think they are powerful and worth considering. Currently, I choose not to play them over the cheaper, less versatile mono-colored spells unless I include them in the multicolor section (where obviously only very powerful cards like Lingering Souls and Unburial Rites make the cut). This is because I fear that they would either not be played or lead to more decks splashing more colors, which would not correspond with my design principles.
I sure hope Kranny does test Far//Away (and other cards like it) and that he presents his results in an article and/or pod-cast, so that I and others may learn and reevaluate as necessary.
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
I mean, it's impossible to come here (or go to his website) and start saying that someone's system is objectively wrong. It's just not possible, because it's a totally subjective organsation system. There can be no formal logic that leads one to the conclusion that making Far//Away compete in a given section or otherwise is somehow incorrect. It isn't a gold card, a hybrid card, or a blue card. The closest way to a 'perfect' system would be to have a separate 'split' card section. But then... someone would have their panties in a twist because split and fuse cards are mixed. Or that they have different functions between each colour pair's choices. Or different CMCs. It's an infinite regression of pointlessness and pedantry.
Just use the system you like, that your cube group wants to use. Whatever lets you use the cards you want in a manner you consider fair. You can't just get frustrated because other people are using a different system. By all means, point out why you consider yours better, but there is no right and wrong here, and never, ever can be; getting 'frustrated' by this thread because people are making a certain card compete in their particular cube structure, rather than yours - it doesn't help anybody.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms: