Actually, my paradigm was part of a new one, and was a response to the midrange heavy "combo" dragon cubes that were the norm before I designed my cube to fix the problems that were fundamentally embedded in those lists. And I certainly wasn't the only one. Tons of people were fed up with inconsistencies in narrow combo strategies like storm, and they were tired of the control-dominant nature of cubes without adequate aggro support. Where the cube is now is the next level of evolution moving away from lists that don't support aggro and have too many narrow combo elements.
I actually agree with this. I don't think Gubbe or myself are evolutionary in our cube design. I call my cube "semi-retro" for a reason.
Where I don't agree with you is WHY you've had to evolve your cube the way you have. You see it as a problem that has always existed. But that isn't true. When cube was first invented (anyone know when? 2005 maybe?), it was before the massive power creep that we've seen from M10.
You guys have all become desensitized to what Wizards has done to this game over the last 5 years. It's hardly recognizable to old timers who have been away from the game. Control is much more powerful today than they were in the past because of the creatures they had available to them then versus now (not to mention all the planeswalkers which naturally favor control strategies due to their inherent CA nature).
Look at original lists. Back when cube first came to be, the greatest thing a midrange deck had to fear was a Kamigawa dragon (which at the time were the best of the best because they actually protected themselves somewhat with a powerful (yet fairly costed) ability when they died). If I'm playing midrange and I have the control player down below 10 life and they drop a Kamigawa dragon, (I'm not happy of course) but I still have a chance depending on my board position at the time (and what answers I have for the dragon). Against things like Baneslayer Angel (which comes into play one turn earlier than the kamigawa dragons - to add insult to injury) or against a Titan or Wurmcoil Engine? The game is virtually lost once those hit the table because they are so much more impactful to the game. Even if I can kill the Wurmcoil the minute it hits the board, I still have 2 three power creatures, one with deathtouch and one with lifelink to contend with. It's basically a no win situation (unless I luck sack an exile effect AND my opponent can't counter it or remove it from my hand).
You are seeing the rock/paper/scissors problem of A/M/C BECAUSE of the games power creep. It wasn't there when cube first came into being. In fact, back then it wasn't even possible to build it into your cube because there weren't enough aggro creatures to even make it 1/3 of your meta (without really scrapping the barrel for playables). AND YET despite that "flaw", cube was successful enough to create a whole new format that even Wizards supports now. Everyone that played cube back then said it was the most fun they'd ever had playing magic (no mention anywhere of it being control dominated and a broken meta environment). If it was so horribly broken back then, people would have written it off as a failed experiment. But they didn't.
The M10 rule changes and subsequent power creep have changed the game drastically. And I understand those that want to create a cube environment that is compatible with how the game has changed. For the record, Wtwlf's approach is one way to do that. Me personally, I want to keep my cube closer to the pre-M10 meta where I don't need to have ridiculously efficient aggro decks to combat the stupidly powerful control finishers of today (which midrange decks in turn auto lose to). Again, that is fundamentally what I saw in constructed (X beats Y beats Z beats X) and IMO that's actually what's broken about magic (and why I only play cube at this point). And I do not want to encourage that silliness in my cube meta (as it defeats the purpose of me playing cube all together).
I want the better player (the guy making fewer play mistakes and putting together the best synergistic deck) winning more often. I don't want it being about inherent insurmountable matchup problems that cannot be overcome with good game play. And I'm willing to ban pretty much any card that gets in the way of that desired game state. And whether you guys want to admit it or not, this IS a valid approach to creating a balanced cube meta. Your way isn't the only way to do it.
As far as Gubbe's approach goes (making combo another theatre), I actually think that works if you always have 8 drafters. I never do, so I can't support it (even if I would like to - I personally love combo and think it's one of the most exciting Magic play styles - I wish I could find a way to support it in my drafts). I still think his solution is valid though in the right draft format. Wtwlf's solution is more flexible though when it comes to supporting different draft formats (because his list is more universally draftable).
That's cute...responding to that trollpost and not the ontopic one before that, and also speaking of design failures in an objective manner while acknowledging self-regulating market. If you are right, than I must be wrong. But that's not the case because I don't think I'm wrong. It follows that you are since it's a subjective thing because self-regulating market.
I'm not a revolutionary, I'm just a guy tired of drafting your cube every time online because it's imo not diverse and powerful enough, ending up with the same kind of decks every time ('fair' aggro, midrange, control-decks). Your cube is established, it's not new, it's old. I'm the guy fixing your cube's fundamental problem, which is the lack of balls. (I'm sorry to say that, it's saying near to nothing, but you guys made me the ballsguy so I just had to do it :')..) I'm also just a guy that's propagating storm and turbolandish strategies because they create a more healthy (and ballsy) environment in (online) 8 player draft, enabling a much broader spectrum of synergy / interactivity / power, and an entire different way of playing the game, that a lot of people like to play over 'fair' a/m/c decks. It's nice to see my cube is gaining in popularity. I often join a cubedraft now and they're gonna draft my cube because they like it. I must be doing something right, no? And if my cube would hypothetically become established, then it's time for yet another 'new' approach. Cube is like fashion. Can be futuristic, can be retro, can be all over the place.
Right. So if I build my cube to play the way it does, because it plays the way I want it to, and you build your cube the way you do because it plays the way you want it to, what needs to change? Nothing. The only purpose of managing a cube is to sculpt the environment you want to play. So if your way works for you, great! That style didn't work for me, so I fixed the issues I perceived as problems and now my cube works the way I want it to. I've achieved the balance I wanted to. For all the reasons and in all the ways that we've discussed ad nauseum at this point.
What's left to say? If your way works for you, that's wonderful! My way works for me. Every cube managers way works for them, otherwise, they'd change it. There are a ton of people that feel just like you do. They want to play a product that's different from the one I create. And they should. They should play cubes that do what they want them to do.
There is no right or wrong way to cube. The only thing you can strive to do is create the best environment for you and the like-minded people that are looking to play a similar format. This thread was about why people that think like I do find having an aggro/midrange/control balance important, and I think it's been adequately explained. You don't have to agree. As I've said a million times before, it would be a really boring format if every list was the same.
Cube isn't an arena where you try to dominate ideas. This forum is a place to share information and experiences; where people can get advice on how to best support their environment the way they want to. It's about helping other members. Not spitting vitriol, rhetoric, propaganda and nonsense. I think you've grossly misinterpreted the purpose of cube drafting, and the function of this forum.
You are seeing the rock/paper/scissors problem of A/M/C BECAUSE of the games power creep.
I don't think this is true. The powerlevel of every archetype has increased accordingly over time. Even in the first cube lists, the lack of aggro and the dominance of control was apparent. The powerlevel of the individual cards isn't what contributed to the problem, it's the fundamental matchup advantages in how the theaters play against each other.
I'll just quote this again, since you only respond to irrelevant stuff.
If you would only post relevant stuff, I wouldn't have to respond to your irrelevant stuff.
In regards to your combo winter and the cube comments, I don't feel like they apply to the cube metagame. I didn't reply to it because I've already replied to the same comments a dozen times in this thread. R/P/S can be applied as an argument against the health/balance of a limited environment where one (or more) of the three is underrepresented. My experience with cubes like yours is that midrange is overrepresented, which gives control the window to have a fundamantal matchup advantage against a great percentage of the table. ONE aggro deck floating around doesn't change that dynamic. But again, I've already spelled that out 100 times, and you counter it with the same recycled and rehashed argument you've been spitting from the beginning, and it simply doesn't hold water in my experience. Obviously your list does what you want it to do, so what do you care if I disagree with you?
Not really...we awkwardly danced around the subject a bit with broad statements unsupported by actual specific arguments. Well, I provided some, you just end up saying statements like this over and over again:
I think I've provided more than enough relevant experiences in my arguments.
If you wanna change that, you can post some concrete information instead of posting about balls, rabbits, global capitalism, soccer and other nonsense.
LOL! What makes you have to respond to my irrelevant stuff?...You could choose not to respond to my irrelevant stuff and only to my relevant stuff. At least i'm no hypocrite about the flamewar. I actually enjoy this form of debate. If I wasn't, I wouldn't reply.
If you don't want people to respond to irrelevant stuff, don't post it.
Oh, wait, seriously? I thought we were finally beyond this point. I thought the 'health/balance' of a cube is a pure subjective matter, and thus it CAN'T be used as an argument for health nor balance.
Than neither can yours. My perception was imbalance, so I fixed it. Your perception is clearly different. All we can discuss is our personal opinions, experiences and conclusions.
so disrespectful to my cube bro. At least I drafted yours very often.
I'm glad you draft my list often. It wasn't a jab at your list. Just experiences with lists like yours. You point out your perceived flaws in my cube, but I can't do the same about yours? Hm.
I've listened plenty. More than enough, actually. Anything new/meaningful to contribute and I'll listen to that. Instead, all I get is the same recycled information that presents nothing new and nothing of value.
You guys focus way too much on irrelevant things. I actually made a, imo, decent ontopic post, and also a little trollpost (because i'm the ballsguy), and what do you respond to? If you just take my actual points and argue them and ignore the rest of me altogether...but noooooo. What happened to 'don't feed the troll'? It seems you are actually only interested in the flamewar.
Also, i was only saying wtf is wrong about me being wrong because I don't think I'm wrong and as you say, and as I was saying (in the first post mind you), and as even wtf was saying, there's nothing wrong with how one designs his cube.
But that's not taken into account in the criticism against storm and turboland, or 'dragon' cubes. Non-arguments like this r/p/s-balance are used to bring storm and turboland down to being 'not-healthy', also these arrogant 'i've seen it all before' Argumentum ab auctoritate, are given to show who is actually disrespecting. I attack wtf's cube because I respect it. It's really good, just not good and diverse enough imo. (For 8 player online draft)
If you don't understand what I'm saying, just ask specific questions to what you want to know. And don't try to do an impression of me, it's putting me out of my context, saying something entirely different than what I actually mean.
This is very amusing, as you criticize others for only concentrating on certain parts of posts, but yet you are doing the exact same thing here. It's like the pot calling the kettle black, or that it takes one to know one. You are also GROSSLY misreading my posts if you think I am flaming; I've tried to provide constructive criticism at the same time as trying to explain WHY I am giving you said advice. It's YOUR choice to read it as flames, because you haven't yet responded to any of my points about the way you assemble your arguments.
We've tried multiple times to understand what you're saying, and asked questions about what you mean, and we still just get rhetoric in return instead of actual points and realistic examples. You want specific questions? How about these:
- Why does attacking something mean you respect it?
- Why don't you cite very specific realistic examples in your posts, instead of talking about things that don't exist (like Pack Rat Cube...Relentless Rats Cube would be a better example anyway)?
- When you say 'more powerful', what exactly do you mean?
- When you say 'not good enough', what exactly does that mean?
- Why do you hold onto the concept that things need to be attacked?
- How old are you? I've found that undergraduate students have these sort of circular and "revolutionary" arguments more than job-holding adults with families.
- If people have found that 'plain' green ramp works very well for them, why push the 'turboland' thing so much? Most have found it to not be any better.
- There are people who like storm a lot in Cube, a very good friend of mine who now works for WotC included, but unless the entire Cube is drafted every time such a niche archetype is hard to actually get all the cards assembled. I've done this EXACT thing before with mono-black swamps-matter decks, and was unhappy with the dynamics when you don't draft the whole Cube. Others have found this same thing. What NEW points are you bringing to the table on those topics? I have yet to see any.
Also, my 'imitation' of you is an accurate representation of what I think you are saying. I wager others agree with me. If you don't like it, then maybe you need to realize that perception is often reality.
Go back and read my posts to you again, and I urge you to take my advice regarding the tone and approach of your own posts, before this (d)evolves into the actual flamewar you think it is now. I've actually been very nice in this whole thing, and trying to provide you an HONEST look at what people are thinking of your posts in addition to helping you continue to adjust to an environment of discussion. I've even complimented your passion, and want you to use it more constructively.
And what did I get? A douchebag comment about Socrates, to which I replied with a joke. Notice that someone else commented on that snark of yours, as well.
OK, that's not all. I found Storm really inconsistent too. I found Living Death combo really inconsistent. You know what hasn't been inconsistent? Creating the aggro/midrange/control meta by supporting aggro across four colors. Going to that metagame has resulted in the widest variety of decks being competitive and the lowest amount of drafters ending up with piles of crap because they didn't get the storm/combo cards they needed. Maybe this is an artifact of usually drafting with 6 players and never drafting the whole cube at once; maybe not. But really pushing aggro has mostly moved my cube away from being the midrange slugfest it once was. And that has been mostly due to the influence of wtwlf, calibretto, and other aggro proponents. And it's been great for my group.
The powerlevel of every archetype has increased accordingly over time... The powerlevel of the individual cards isn't what contributed to the problem, it's the fundamental matchup advantages in how the theaters play against each other.
I don't disagree, but it was a domino effect. One thing led to another.
It all started with Planeswalkers.
Suddenly you had 4-5 CMC cards that were resilient virtual CA engines which if left alone would win games all on their own. These naturally favored slower decks (control in particular). This led to the creature power creep explosion across the board. Suddenly, it wasn't good enough to just be a quality spell or a quality creature, you had to have both effects in one card to combat the power of Planeswalkers. Then you needed better control finishers to combat the more efficient midrange creatures and then you needed better aggro creatures to combat all the power creep everywhere else. It was (is) a runaway problem in the game and IMO it hasn't made the game better.
The net result is a meta that is more polarized than it used to be. Yes, there was always a fundamental mechanic of A > C > M > A (I think you can argue combo was part of that equation at one time), but it really had more to do with mana curves than anything. Expensive cards simply DO more, so if your deck has more of those in it then it will have an advantage if the game does long because you can do more with the mana you have. If you have more cheap cards, you naturally have a tempo advantage and you will be stronger in the early parts of the game. This tug of war dynamic though got WORSE with the power creep not better. It didn't used to be so cut and dry (where games are pretty much over once control finishers hit the field).
Back to a discussion point I brought up earlier, every game of magic is fundamentally just a struggle between aggressor and non-aggressor. By that I mean, one player is going to naturally take an aggressive approach and the other player will react to that by trying to drag things out and shift momentum in the later game. That is often all about what kind of deck you build (aggro vs midrange vs control vs combo -whatever), but in mirror matches it is more about whose deck has more inherent card quality/advantage and whose deck is faster. Luck factors into it naturally (draws and getting what you need when you need it), but that's the game in a nutshell. Simply a balance between those two types of game plans.
Point I'm trying to make is that I think the game of Magic functions better when it is less about X beats Y beats Z beats X and more about focusing on the balance of this tug of war - to either win the game while you have the advantage (tempo player) or stall the game long enough so you can win (control player). That is where I personally feel the ultimate cube meta should live, where every single matchup was essentially 50/50 and the winner had more to do with quality of play than match ups. It's why I don't run many of controls best finishers and why my meta is so midrange centric. Whether that idea is every truly possible is another matter, but I do think you can get close to it in cube because you control what effects exist in the meta.
OK, that's not all. I found Storm really inconsistent too. I found Living Death combo really inconsistent. You know what hasn't been inconsistent? Creating the aggro/midrange/control meta by supporting aggro across four colors. Going to that metagame has resulted in the widest variety of decks being competitive and the lowest amount of drafters ending up with piles of crap because they didn't get the storm/combo cards they needed. Maybe this is an artifact of usually drafting with 6 players and never drafting the whole cube at once; maybe not. But really pushing aggro has mostly moved my cube away from being the midrange slugfest it once was. And that has been mostly due to the influence of wtwlf, calibretto, and other aggro proponents. And it's been great for my group.
Cheers,
rant
I think this is a huge reason for some of the disagreements between parties. I personally agree that storm is too hard to support when you are not drafting the whole cube. I made a half-hearted attempt at adding combo awhile back and it was impossible to assemble with 4 drafters. I tried a couple times and ended up with lackluster decks.
With that said, there is also user experience that can radically alter perceptions. You bring up Living Death and it's a perfect example. IMO, it's an uncuttable card - the best black 5 CMC card ever printed. It doesn't even really need to be built around honestly if you include ETB creatures or put even a minimal amount of energy into your deck build. And in the right deck, it's one of the most powerful cards in the entire cube. Broken good. So good, that card will never be reprinted.
Yet I completely understand how another group can have a totally different opinion on the card. Different meta, different deck building skills (not better or worse mind you, just different).
I cannot for the life of me make a good Upheaval deck (and neither can anyone else in my group), so it's probably going to get cut during the next update. I am certain there are people here who find that card virtually uncuttable. I KNOW the card is broken and I can't make it good enough to justify a spot in my cube. Different deck building skills. I can break Living Death without even thinking about it. But I can't do it with Upheaval. I understand how to do it in theory, but it just never comes together for me.
And that right there is a big reason each side is having trouble seeing the other sides viewpoint. They have years of experience telling them Storm/Turboland doesn't work or midrange centric cubes are control dominated when there are groups using these and not running into the same experiences.
I know this is off topic, but I REALLY WANT combo in my cube. So if someone has a way to make it draftable by 4 players, I am all ears. That should probably be another thread though. Still, someone please reopen the old one or create a new one because I'd like to hear ideas on how to do it.
You know what hasn't been inconsistent? Creating the aggro/midrange/control meta by supporting aggro across four colors.
Good post, rant.
I just want to point out that the smaller your cube becomes, the more likely it is to fully support aggro in fewer colors. My 360 has amazing aggro support across 3 colors. I make this point for those who still want balanced aggro support but aren't big fans of how the dedicated green aggro cards function.
Suddenly you had 4-5 CMC cards that were resilient virtual CA engines which if left alone would win games all on their own. These naturally favored slower decks (control in particular). This led to the creature power creep explosion across the board. Suddenly, it wasn't good enough to just be a quality spell or a quality creature, you had to have both effects in one card to combat the power of Planeswalkers. Then you needed better control finishers to combat the more efficient midrange creatures and then you needed better aggro creatures to combat all the power creep everywhere else. It was (is) a runaway problem in the game and IMO it hasn't made the game better.
While I don't disagree that most planeswalkers favor a slower game, how do you view planeswalkers like Koth, Liliana of the Veil, Elspeth K-E, Chandra Pyromaster, etc? These PW can turn the tides for aggressive decks or just outright win games. I can't recall how many times I've won turn 4 with a hastey mountain courtesy of Koth. I'm getting the impression that you're lumping all planeswalkers together with the likes of Jace and co.
Also, for the record I couldn't imagine playing cube without being able to curve out turns 1-4 with an aggro deck and keep every other deck honest.
I cannot for the life of me make a good Upheaval deck (and neither can anyone else in my group), so it's probably going to get cut during the next update. I am certain there are people here who find that card virtually uncuttable. I KNOW the card is broken and I can't make it good enough to justify a spot in my cube. Different deck building skills. I can break Living Death without even thinking about it. But I can't do it with Upheaval. I understand how to do it in theory, but it just never comes together for me.
Not to delve too deeply into using Upheaval, but does your group have a similar problem with Wildfire? I ask because I often put them in the same deck and because a lot of the cards that make one good make the other good (namely fast artifact mana). Also, the worst Upheaval ever can be is a reset when you are in trouble. I think Upheaval is the about the 5th best blue card (right behind Recall, Time Walk, and Mana Drain; debatably behind Tinker and Jace 2.0).
I've tried Living Death in my cube twice at times separated by about 3 years. Both times, it sat in sideboards a lot. When it didn't, there were just too many times when it would be just as good for the opponent as for the caster.
My support for combo now is limited to Tinker, reanimator, and Natural Order. That's good enough for me and my group. Usually those decks can still function if they don't get all the pieces they want (as a fast-mana artifact deck, a BX control/midrange deck, and a GX ramp deck respectively).
That's cute...responding to that trollpost and not the ontopic one before that, and also speaking of design failures in an objective manner while acknowledging self-regulating market. If you are right, than I must be wrong. But that's not the case because I don't think I'm wrong. It follows that you are since it's a subjective thing because self-regulating market.
I'm not a revolutionary, I'm just a guy tired of drafting your cube every time online because it's imo not diverse and powerful enough, ending up with the same kind of decks every time ('fair' aggro, midrange, control-decks). Your cube is established, it's not new, it's old. I'm the guy fixing your cube's fundamental problem, which is the lack of balls. (I'm sorry to say that, it's saying near to nothing, but you guys made me the ballsguy so I just had to do it :')..) I'm also just a guy that's propagating storm and turbolandish strategies because they create a more healthy (and ballsy) environment in (online) 8 player draft, enabling a much broader spectrum of synergy / interactivity / power, and an entire different way of playing the game, that a lot of people like to play over 'fair' a/m/c decks. It's nice to see my cube is gaining in popularity. I often join a cubedraft now and they're gonna draft my cube because they like it. I must be doing something right, no? And if my cube would hypothetically become established, then it's time for yet another 'new' approach. Cube is like fashion. Can be futuristic, can be retro, can be all over the place.
I still haven't read the rest of the posts after this, but dude, you make some good points (I disagree with but its an interesting topic) but try to minimize the ego. It's gross and distracts from the topic at hand and can derail the thread.
Not to delve too deeply into using Upheaval, but does your group have a similar problem with Wildfire? I ask because I often put them in the same deck and because a lot of the cards that make one good make the other good (namely fast artifact mana). Also, the worst Upheaval ever can be is a reset when you are in trouble. I think Upheaval is the about the 5th best blue card (right behind Recall, Time Walk, and Mana Drain; debatably behind Tinker and Jace 2.0).
I've tried Living Death in my cube twice at times separated by about 3 years. Both times, it sat in sideboards a lot. When it didn't, there were just too many times when it would be just as good for the opponent as for the caster.
My support for combo now is limited to Tinker, reanimator, and Natural Order. That's good enough for me and my group. Usually those decks can still function if they don't get all the pieces they want (as a fast-mana artifact deck, a BX control/midrange deck, and a GX ramp deck respectively).
Cheers,
rant
I used to run more combos, but they are hard to pull off. Synergies are much more important. Combo cards are fine if they are ok on their own merits. I still run Kiki-jiki for this reason. Occasionally summon will get it and pestermite out and win.
Oh and meant to reply earlier, but I find ahadaband cube style an interesting and valid one.
After viewing the list... Id guess "going big" is still the most powerful archetype, but excluding the cards he has, definitely bridges the gap and allows the mid-range creatures to not get dramatically outclassed as the game progresses. More interactivity etc.
Not the cube style I personally would develop, but think its a good approach.
Way before this! My Cube was started in 2002 and I had been Cubing for a year already with a friend's Cube. I'd say Cube is from 1999 / 2000.
The earliest cube I know of was created in December 1997, but I wouldn't doubt that one may have been made earlier. Ice Age was released in June 1995 and put the idea of a "self contained set" into the discourse and being the first set to be drafted with any sort of popularity I doubt it could have been any earlier then that. I will wildly guess the first cube was created October 1995.
Not to delve too deeply into using Upheaval, but does your group have a similar problem with Wildfire? I ask because I often put them in the same deck and because a lot of the cards that make one good make the other good (namely fast artifact mana). Also, the worst Upheaval ever can be is a reset when you are in trouble. I think Upheaval is the about the 5th best blue card (right behind Recall, Time Walk, and Mana Drain; debatably behind Tinker and Jace 2.0).
I've tried Living Death in my cube twice at times separated by about 3 years. Both times, it sat in sideboards a lot. When it didn't, there were just too many times when it would be just as good for the opponent as for the caster.
My support for combo now is limited to Tinker, reanimator, and Natural Order. That's good enough for me and my group. Usually those decks can still function if they don't get all the pieces they want (as a fast-mana artifact deck, a BX control/midrange deck, and a GX ramp deck respectively).
Cheers,
rant
The Wildfire deck is almost always the Gruul land destruction ramp deck. So molten rain, acid moss, acidic clime, cultivate, maybe some mana rocks, fatties, wildfire. I've been trying to move Gruul more towards an aggressive fires type deck though, so Wildfire might go the way of Upheaval with no home.
I will try and build a wildfire upheaval deck though for some testing. If I can make it work, I'll keep upheaval because it is clearly a card begging to be abused. The one time I did get it work well is in the deck you describe - lots of mana rocks and I used it to reset the game but with enough mana to get a solid head start after it resolved. My issue with that spell is it tends to drag games out though. Another reason I'm considering cutting it.
Living Death is super broken in reanimator. I mean in ways on par with recurring nightmare broken. There's no way it doesn't win you the game if you cast it late. It is also super busted in GB birthing pod decks. Couple it with ETB black creatures like bone shredder and Nekrataal and it doesn't matter what your opponent gets back, you use the ETB triggers to kill off his best stuff and you end up with an army. Living Death is so deliciously abusable.
I also have Tinker, Reanimator and Natural Order as comboish type decks (plus Birthing Pod). But I would love to find a way to make something like heartbeat or storm work. It's just too dependent on cards that suck if you don't get all the pieces. Plus it's so hard to make consistent in a singleton format.
While I don't disagree that most planeswalkers favor a slower game, how do you view planeswalkers like Koth, Liliana of the Veil, Elspeth K-E, Chandra Pyromaster, etc? These PW can turn the tides for aggressive decks or just outright win games. I can't recall how many times I've won turn 4 with a hastey mountain courtesy of Koth. I'm getting the impression that you're lumping all planeswalkers together with the likes of Jace and co.
Also, for the record I couldn't imagine playing cube without being able to curve out turns 1-4 with an aggro deck and keep every other deck honest.
There are certainly PW that help aggro and midrange. Garruk Wildspeaker is a fantastic aggressive PW that adds another overrun effect plus un-taps lands to play more creatures. That card is amazing. But that's just it.
My primary point is how powerful these cards are and how much they've caused a shift in creature power levels to compensate. It's changed the game dramatically and forced aggro decks to be better and faster and control decks to be even more dominating as the game drags on (to counteract the faster more punishing aggro/midrange decks). The Aggro - Midrange - Control power line used to be a slight grade, now it's a steep 45 degree line.
As far as aggro decks curving out on turn 4, you can certainly build those if you want, I'm just not a fan of seeing 2-3 of them at the table because in order to do that, I have to run a massive number of 2 power one drops AND I'd have to find a way to make my players love aggro. Neither is something I care to do.
Oh and meant to reply earlier, but I find ahadaband cube style an interesting and valid one.
After viewing the list... Id guess "going big" is still the most powerful archetype, but excluding the cards he has, definitely bridges the gap and allows the mid-range creatures to not get dramatically outclassed as the game progresses. More interactivity etc.
Not the cube style I personally would develop, but think its a good approach.
Thanks Lucid. And in a previous thread I mentioned that my cube meta could probably be broken (despite my efforts) by a group of really competitive players in the way Wtwlf keeps stating (finding the control deck that dominates and consistently beating everyone at the table with it). But that hasn't been an issue because my playgroup is really casual. It's less about winning for most of them and more about just having fun, seeing crazy plays and socializing. Part of that is the mentality of these gamers - they are role-players (we have a regular D&D session) which is not competitive in nature but more co-op. It's just a different mindset.
We tend to play a lot of two headed giant because 4 is the typical number of drafters and it allows more co-op style play.
Things are getting heated and derailed now. Here's just a friendly reminder to please keep things ontopic, and to not engage with one another in offtopic arguments. That means don't feed trolls and don't attack one another. Show restraint and don't even respond to offtopic arguments. Always be civil. There are places you can take offtopic discussion, assuming you maintain politeness.
We're currently reviewing the discussion in this thread and deciding what, if any, reprimands need to be given out. Meanwhile, we will be keeping an eye on this discussion, and we'll be jumping on top of things if they get too crazy.
This isn't the first mod request that you guys have received. Don't expect just a slap on the wrist if you fail to heed the rules or our intervention again.
The Aggro - Midrange - Control power line used to be a slight grade, now it's a steep 45 degree line.
Again, I really don't think this is the case at all. Every theater has improved with the increase in card quality. What makes the A/M/C apply is how they fundamentally matchup against each other.
It wasn't bomb creatures that made control good against midrange. Midrange's creatures have improved just as much (if note more so, actually) than control's have.
Control is just as good against midrange now as it was in the early days of cubing.
And that has been mostly due to the influence of wtwlf, calibretto, and other aggro proponents. And it's been great for my group.
Aggro 4 life, yo.
Seriously, though... I've been an aggro player pretty much since day one of my Magic career. I bought a pack of Stronghold and a pack of Weatherlight and traded my rares (a Volrath's Stonghold and a Lotus Vale) for my first ever actual Magic: The Gathering deck. An utter pile of green and white nonsense packed full of Trained Armodons, Aurochs, and Iron Tusk Elephants. I loved turning creatures sideways and winning with damage. In 1998 a Propaganda across the table was my mortal enemy. My first competitive deck was my own Sui Black variant. I was also a big fan of 10-land Stompy and WW (splashing green for Rancor) back in the day.
Nowadays cube is all I play, so I want the things I love about playing Magic to be present in my cube experience. I can craft together a really sweet black aggressive deck and have a blast opening up with Carnophage, Dauthi Horror, Hymn to Tourach. It means I get to have as much fun playing now as I did in 1998 when I was 16 and didn't think Magic went much further than the lunch table at school.
To be honest, I don't think too much about the whole A/M/C dynamic. I agree with wtwlf, but mostly because I like having all three theaters represented. I like being able to get a taste of multiple archetypes. I can draft that black aggressive deck. Or I can first pick a Pox and go down that road. I can play Gruul with Kird Ape and Jungle Lion or I can play Gruul with Llanowar Elf and Huntmaster of the Fells. Hell, even blue gives me options. Sometimes it's Standstill, cheap flyers, and Kira, Great Glass Spinner. Other times it's Mana Drain, Wrath of God, and Aetherling. And even other times it's Grim Monolith and Upheaval. I support these three theaters in my cube because I like variety. I like that aggro is there if I want it. I also like that I get draft something different and play against my beloved aggro decks sometimes. This is what makes the cube draft fun for me.
No one is telling you that you're wrong, Gubbe85. You're not wrong. You're absolutely right... for your group. But what's right for your group is not right for my group (or Antknee's, or rant's, or wtwlf's). And that's ok. You should keep doing what you want to do because that's what your group enjoys when they cube draft. I don't, however, think you'll ever be able to convince myself or anyone arguing against your style of cubing that we're somehow doing it wrong.
Again, I really don't think this is the case at all. Every theater has improved with the increase in card quality. What makes the A/M/C apply is how they fundamentally matchup against each other.
It wasn't bomb creatures that made control good against midrange. Midrange's creatures have improved just as much (if note more so, actually) than control's have.
Control is just as good against midrange now as it was in the early days of cubing.
Every theater has improved, yes. But the creature power creep is more significant in the higher costed creatures. Control is BETTER against midrange than it used to be.
People are still running many of the three drops that existed from pre-M10 days. Even some 4 drops (Blastoderm is still around in some cubes). 5 and 6 drops though? That is much more slanted towards post M10 because the ones being printed now are ridiculous.
Take Baneslayer Angel (one of the biggest offenders). 5/5 flying with protection (granted not great protection), lifelink, and first strike. All for the same cost as Serra Angel (4/4 flying vigilance - no other abilities). I mean, it's silly really. It's like Wizards threw out all the rules of the game that had existed for 20 years and just decided to reinvent the wheel on what 5 mana should get you.
And that's just a 5 drop example. The 6 drops are just as bad if not worse. Grave Titan is a great example. 10 power for 6 mana. When did that become the norm? And you get 4 more power EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU ATTACK WITH IT. Compare that to the black Kamigawa dragon. 5/5 flying with zero other abilities while still alive (though the dying clause is a very nice life swing). Or better yet, compare it to skeletal vampire (which was a legitimate finisher in it's time). That was a 3/3 flyer with two 1/1 bats and a really costly make more bats ability (but the regenerate ability was really good).
It's night and day.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have new aggro 1 and 2 drops which are better than before but not nearly to the degree you see at higher converted mana costs. Great, I have savannah lions with protection from terminate. Joy.
This GREATLY favors control. In a really unfair way. Once Grave Titan hits the battlefield, as the aggro player you basically need to draw burn NOW and finish the control player off because you really have no other options at that point. All non-red aggro decks are basically done for. Against midrange, it's equally un-winnable, if not more so.
And this is just Grave Titan (not even the best 6 drop). Wurmcoil is even more game ending for midrange and aggro because of the stupid life swing (that is virtually unavoidable due to the dying clause - here you get 6 more power for free, 3 with lifelink because clearly control needs more help being stupidly good).
These finishers laugh at anything that was ever printed before and they are a big reason for the "control needs to be kept in check by aggro" mindset. Because a game of modern magic is over once the control player gets to 6 mana.
All of that just sounds like a description of what happens if you run all powerful planeswalkers and expensive bombs without properly supporting aggro. In our cube, Baneslayer is far from problematic, and control does not auto-win once it reaches 6 mana. And aggro does fine, but isn't dominant, and we still get fun synergistic decks, too. And anything can win the draft. It's possible even today and without massive ban lists.
I found Gubbe's 'combo winter' argument quite compelling, and maybe one day there are so many ridiculous bombs that some regulation will become necessary, but we're not there yet, if we ever will be.
I actually agree with this. I don't think Gubbe or myself are evolutionary in our cube design. I call my cube "semi-retro" for a reason.
Where I don't agree with you is WHY you've had to evolve your cube the way you have. You see it as a problem that has always existed. But that isn't true. When cube was first invented (anyone know when? 2005 maybe?), it was before the massive power creep that we've seen from M10.
You guys have all become desensitized to what Wizards has done to this game over the last 5 years. It's hardly recognizable to old timers who have been away from the game. Control is much more powerful today than they were in the past because of the creatures they had available to them then versus now (not to mention all the planeswalkers which naturally favor control strategies due to their inherent CA nature).
Look at original lists. Back when cube first came to be, the greatest thing a midrange deck had to fear was a Kamigawa dragon (which at the time were the best of the best because they actually protected themselves somewhat with a powerful (yet fairly costed) ability when they died). If I'm playing midrange and I have the control player down below 10 life and they drop a Kamigawa dragon, (I'm not happy of course) but I still have a chance depending on my board position at the time (and what answers I have for the dragon). Against things like Baneslayer Angel (which comes into play one turn earlier than the kamigawa dragons - to add insult to injury) or against a Titan or Wurmcoil Engine? The game is virtually lost once those hit the table because they are so much more impactful to the game. Even if I can kill the Wurmcoil the minute it hits the board, I still have 2 three power creatures, one with deathtouch and one with lifelink to contend with. It's basically a no win situation (unless I luck sack an exile effect AND my opponent can't counter it or remove it from my hand).
You are seeing the rock/paper/scissors problem of A/M/C BECAUSE of the games power creep. It wasn't there when cube first came into being. In fact, back then it wasn't even possible to build it into your cube because there weren't enough aggro creatures to even make it 1/3 of your meta (without really scrapping the barrel for playables). AND YET despite that "flaw", cube was successful enough to create a whole new format that even Wizards supports now. Everyone that played cube back then said it was the most fun they'd ever had playing magic (no mention anywhere of it being control dominated and a broken meta environment). If it was so horribly broken back then, people would have written it off as a failed experiment. But they didn't.
The M10 rule changes and subsequent power creep have changed the game drastically. And I understand those that want to create a cube environment that is compatible with how the game has changed. For the record, Wtwlf's approach is one way to do that. Me personally, I want to keep my cube closer to the pre-M10 meta where I don't need to have ridiculously efficient aggro decks to combat the stupidly powerful control finishers of today (which midrange decks in turn auto lose to). Again, that is fundamentally what I saw in constructed (X beats Y beats Z beats X) and IMO that's actually what's broken about magic (and why I only play cube at this point). And I do not want to encourage that silliness in my cube meta (as it defeats the purpose of me playing cube all together).
I want the better player (the guy making fewer play mistakes and putting together the best synergistic deck) winning more often. I don't want it being about inherent insurmountable matchup problems that cannot be overcome with good game play. And I'm willing to ban pretty much any card that gets in the way of that desired game state. And whether you guys want to admit it or not, this IS a valid approach to creating a balanced cube meta. Your way isn't the only way to do it.
As far as Gubbe's approach goes (making combo another theatre), I actually think that works if you always have 8 drafters. I never do, so I can't support it (even if I would like to - I personally love combo and think it's one of the most exciting Magic play styles - I wish I could find a way to support it in my drafts). I still think his solution is valid though in the right draft format. Wtwlf's solution is more flexible though when it comes to supporting different draft formats (because his list is more universally draftable).
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Right. So if I build my cube to play the way it does, because it plays the way I want it to, and you build your cube the way you do because it plays the way you want it to, what needs to change? Nothing. The only purpose of managing a cube is to sculpt the environment you want to play. So if your way works for you, great! That style didn't work for me, so I fixed the issues I perceived as problems and now my cube works the way I want it to. I've achieved the balance I wanted to. For all the reasons and in all the ways that we've discussed ad nauseum at this point.
What's left to say? If your way works for you, that's wonderful! My way works for me. Every cube managers way works for them, otherwise, they'd change it. There are a ton of people that feel just like you do. They want to play a product that's different from the one I create. And they should. They should play cubes that do what they want them to do.
There is no right or wrong way to cube. The only thing you can strive to do is create the best environment for you and the like-minded people that are looking to play a similar format. This thread was about why people that think like I do find having an aggro/midrange/control balance important, and I think it's been adequately explained. You don't have to agree. As I've said a million times before, it would be a really boring format if every list was the same.
Cube isn't an arena where you try to dominate ideas. This forum is a place to share information and experiences; where people can get advice on how to best support their environment the way they want to. It's about helping other members. Not spitting vitriol, rhetoric, propaganda and nonsense. I think you've grossly misinterpreted the purpose of cube drafting, and the function of this forum.
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 think this is true. The powerlevel of every archetype has increased accordingly over time. Even in the first cube lists, the lack of aggro and the dominance of control was apparent. The powerlevel of the individual cards isn't what contributed to the problem, it's the fundamental matchup advantages in how the theaters play against each other.
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!
We have talked about it. Time and again.
Storm was too inconsistent for us. Turboland proved to be the lesser ramp option for green for us. Green is perfectly fine aggro for us.
What's changed?
If you would only post relevant stuff, I wouldn't have to respond to your irrelevant stuff.
In regards to your combo winter and the cube comments, I don't feel like they apply to the cube metagame. I didn't reply to it because I've already replied to the same comments a dozen times in this thread. R/P/S can be applied as an argument against the health/balance of a limited environment where one (or more) of the three is underrepresented. My experience with cubes like yours is that midrange is overrepresented, which gives control the window to have a fundamantal matchup advantage against a great percentage of the table. ONE aggro deck floating around doesn't change that dynamic. But again, I've already spelled that out 100 times, and you counter it with the same recycled and rehashed argument you've been spitting from the beginning, and it simply doesn't hold water in my experience. Obviously your list does what you want it to do, so what do you care if I disagree with you?
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 I've provided more than enough relevant experiences in my arguments.
I've stated multiple specific arguments.
If you wanna change that, you can post some concrete information instead of posting about balls, rabbits, global capitalism, soccer and other nonsense.
If you don't want people to respond to irrelevant stuff, don't post it.
Than neither can yours. My perception was imbalance, so I fixed it. Your perception is clearly different. All we can discuss is our personal opinions, experiences and conclusions.
I'm glad you draft my list often. It wasn't a jab at your list. Just experiences with lists like yours. You point out your perceived flaws in my cube, but I can't do the same about yours? Hm.
No, because the storm was inconsistent, turboland wasn't good against control, and neither provided a deterrent to control's dominance. Aggro did.
I've listened plenty. More than enough, actually. Anything new/meaningful to contribute and I'll listen to that. Instead, all I get is the same recycled information that presents nothing new and nothing of value.
Try addressing some of the mistakes in your argumentation and maybe we'll get somewhere.
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!
This is very amusing, as you criticize others for only concentrating on certain parts of posts, but yet you are doing the exact same thing here. It's like the pot calling the kettle black, or that it takes one to know one. You are also GROSSLY misreading my posts if you think I am flaming; I've tried to provide constructive criticism at the same time as trying to explain WHY I am giving you said advice. It's YOUR choice to read it as flames, because you haven't yet responded to any of my points about the way you assemble your arguments.
We've tried multiple times to understand what you're saying, and asked questions about what you mean, and we still just get rhetoric in return instead of actual points and realistic examples. You want specific questions? How about these:
- Why does attacking something mean you respect it?
- Why don't you cite very specific realistic examples in your posts, instead of talking about things that don't exist (like Pack Rat Cube...Relentless Rats Cube would be a better example anyway)?
- When you say 'more powerful', what exactly do you mean?
- When you say 'not good enough', what exactly does that mean?
- Why do you hold onto the concept that things need to be attacked?
- How old are you? I've found that undergraduate students have these sort of circular and "revolutionary" arguments more than job-holding adults with families.
- If people have found that 'plain' green ramp works very well for them, why push the 'turboland' thing so much? Most have found it to not be any better.
- There are people who like storm a lot in Cube, a very good friend of mine who now works for WotC included, but unless the entire Cube is drafted every time such a niche archetype is hard to actually get all the cards assembled. I've done this EXACT thing before with mono-black swamps-matter decks, and was unhappy with the dynamics when you don't draft the whole Cube. Others have found this same thing. What NEW points are you bringing to the table on those topics? I have yet to see any.
Also, my 'imitation' of you is an accurate representation of what I think you are saying. I wager others agree with me. If you don't like it, then maybe you need to realize that perception is often reality.
Go back and read my posts to you again, and I urge you to take my advice regarding the tone and approach of your own posts, before this (d)evolves into the actual flamewar you think it is now. I've actually been very nice in this whole thing, and trying to provide you an HONEST look at what people are thinking of your posts in addition to helping you continue to adjust to an environment of discussion. I've even complimented your passion, and want you to use it more constructively.
And what did I get? A douchebag comment about Socrates, to which I replied with a joke. Notice that someone else commented on that snark of yours, as well.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
You've become my hero. That is all.
OK, that's not all. I found Storm really inconsistent too. I found Living Death combo really inconsistent. You know what hasn't been inconsistent? Creating the aggro/midrange/control meta by supporting aggro across four colors. Going to that metagame has resulted in the widest variety of decks being competitive and the lowest amount of drafters ending up with piles of crap because they didn't get the storm/combo cards they needed. Maybe this is an artifact of usually drafting with 6 players and never drafting the whole cube at once; maybe not. But really pushing aggro has mostly moved my cube away from being the midrange slugfest it once was. And that has been mostly due to the influence of wtwlf, calibretto, and other aggro proponents. And it's been great for my group.
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
I don't disagree, but it was a domino effect. One thing led to another.
It all started with Planeswalkers.
Suddenly you had 4-5 CMC cards that were resilient virtual CA engines which if left alone would win games all on their own. These naturally favored slower decks (control in particular). This led to the creature power creep explosion across the board. Suddenly, it wasn't good enough to just be a quality spell or a quality creature, you had to have both effects in one card to combat the power of Planeswalkers. Then you needed better control finishers to combat the more efficient midrange creatures and then you needed better aggro creatures to combat all the power creep everywhere else. It was (is) a runaway problem in the game and IMO it hasn't made the game better.
The net result is a meta that is more polarized than it used to be. Yes, there was always a fundamental mechanic of A > C > M > A (I think you can argue combo was part of that equation at one time), but it really had more to do with mana curves than anything. Expensive cards simply DO more, so if your deck has more of those in it then it will have an advantage if the game does long because you can do more with the mana you have. If you have more cheap cards, you naturally have a tempo advantage and you will be stronger in the early parts of the game. This tug of war dynamic though got WORSE with the power creep not better. It didn't used to be so cut and dry (where games are pretty much over once control finishers hit the field).
Back to a discussion point I brought up earlier, every game of magic is fundamentally just a struggle between aggressor and non-aggressor. By that I mean, one player is going to naturally take an aggressive approach and the other player will react to that by trying to drag things out and shift momentum in the later game. That is often all about what kind of deck you build (aggro vs midrange vs control vs combo -whatever), but in mirror matches it is more about whose deck has more inherent card quality/advantage and whose deck is faster. Luck factors into it naturally (draws and getting what you need when you need it), but that's the game in a nutshell. Simply a balance between those two types of game plans.
Point I'm trying to make is that I think the game of Magic functions better when it is less about X beats Y beats Z beats X and more about focusing on the balance of this tug of war - to either win the game while you have the advantage (tempo player) or stall the game long enough so you can win (control player). That is where I personally feel the ultimate cube meta should live, where every single matchup was essentially 50/50 and the winner had more to do with quality of play than match ups. It's why I don't run many of controls best finishers and why my meta is so midrange centric. Whether that idea is every truly possible is another matter, but I do think you can get close to it in cube because you control what effects exist in the meta.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
I think this is a huge reason for some of the disagreements between parties. I personally agree that storm is too hard to support when you are not drafting the whole cube. I made a half-hearted attempt at adding combo awhile back and it was impossible to assemble with 4 drafters. I tried a couple times and ended up with lackluster decks.
With that said, there is also user experience that can radically alter perceptions. You bring up Living Death and it's a perfect example. IMO, it's an uncuttable card - the best black 5 CMC card ever printed. It doesn't even really need to be built around honestly if you include ETB creatures or put even a minimal amount of energy into your deck build. And in the right deck, it's one of the most powerful cards in the entire cube. Broken good. So good, that card will never be reprinted.
Yet I completely understand how another group can have a totally different opinion on the card. Different meta, different deck building skills (not better or worse mind you, just different).
I cannot for the life of me make a good Upheaval deck (and neither can anyone else in my group), so it's probably going to get cut during the next update. I am certain there are people here who find that card virtually uncuttable. I KNOW the card is broken and I can't make it good enough to justify a spot in my cube. Different deck building skills. I can break Living Death without even thinking about it. But I can't do it with Upheaval. I understand how to do it in theory, but it just never comes together for me.
And that right there is a big reason each side is having trouble seeing the other sides viewpoint. They have years of experience telling them Storm/Turboland doesn't work or midrange centric cubes are control dominated when there are groups using these and not running into the same experiences.
I know this is off topic, but I REALLY WANT combo in my cube. So if someone has a way to make it draftable by 4 players, I am all ears. That should probably be another thread though. Still, someone please reopen the old one or create a new one because I'd like to hear ideas on how to do it.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Good post, rant.
I just want to point out that the smaller your cube becomes, the more likely it is to fully support aggro in fewer colors. My 360 has amazing aggro support across 3 colors. I make this point for those who still want balanced aggro support but aren't big fans of how the dedicated green aggro cards function.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
While I don't disagree that most planeswalkers favor a slower game, how do you view planeswalkers like Koth, Liliana of the Veil, Elspeth K-E, Chandra Pyromaster, etc? These PW can turn the tides for aggressive decks or just outright win games. I can't recall how many times I've won turn 4 with a hastey mountain courtesy of Koth. I'm getting the impression that you're lumping all planeswalkers together with the likes of Jace and co.
Also, for the record I couldn't imagine playing cube without being able to curve out turns 1-4 with an aggro deck and keep every other deck honest.
Visual Spoiler
Draft!
Not to delve too deeply into using Upheaval, but does your group have a similar problem with Wildfire? I ask because I often put them in the same deck and because a lot of the cards that make one good make the other good (namely fast artifact mana). Also, the worst Upheaval ever can be is a reset when you are in trouble. I think Upheaval is the about the 5th best blue card (right behind Recall, Time Walk, and Mana Drain; debatably behind Tinker and Jace 2.0).
I've tried Living Death in my cube twice at times separated by about 3 years. Both times, it sat in sideboards a lot. When it didn't, there were just too many times when it would be just as good for the opponent as for the caster.
My support for combo now is limited to Tinker, reanimator, and Natural Order. That's good enough for me and my group. Usually those decks can still function if they don't get all the pieces they want (as a fast-mana artifact deck, a BX control/midrange deck, and a GX ramp deck respectively).
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
I still haven't read the rest of the posts after this, but dude, you make some good points (I disagree with but its an interesting topic) but try to minimize the ego. It's gross and distracts from the topic at hand and can derail the thread.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
I used to run more combos, but they are hard to pull off. Synergies are much more important. Combo cards are fine if they are ok on their own merits. I still run Kiki-jiki for this reason. Occasionally summon will get it and pestermite out and win.
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/3pq
After viewing the list... Id guess "going big" is still the most powerful archetype, but excluding the cards he has, definitely bridges the gap and allows the mid-range creatures to not get dramatically outclassed as the game progresses. More interactivity etc.
Not the cube style I personally would develop, but think its a good approach.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
The earliest cube I know of was created in December 1997, but I wouldn't doubt that one may have been made earlier. Ice Age was released in June 1995 and put the idea of a "self contained set" into the discourse and being the first set to be drafted with any sort of popularity I doubt it could have been any earlier then that. I will wildly guess the first cube was created October 1995.
The Wildfire deck is almost always the Gruul land destruction ramp deck. So molten rain, acid moss, acidic clime, cultivate, maybe some mana rocks, fatties, wildfire. I've been trying to move Gruul more towards an aggressive fires type deck though, so Wildfire might go the way of Upheaval with no home.
I will try and build a wildfire upheaval deck though for some testing. If I can make it work, I'll keep upheaval because it is clearly a card begging to be abused. The one time I did get it work well is in the deck you describe - lots of mana rocks and I used it to reset the game but with enough mana to get a solid head start after it resolved. My issue with that spell is it tends to drag games out though. Another reason I'm considering cutting it.
Living Death is super broken in reanimator. I mean in ways on par with recurring nightmare broken. There's no way it doesn't win you the game if you cast it late. It is also super busted in GB birthing pod decks. Couple it with ETB black creatures like bone shredder and Nekrataal and it doesn't matter what your opponent gets back, you use the ETB triggers to kill off his best stuff and you end up with an army. Living Death is so deliciously abusable.
I also have Tinker, Reanimator and Natural Order as comboish type decks (plus Birthing Pod). But I would love to find a way to make something like heartbeat or storm work. It's just too dependent on cards that suck if you don't get all the pieces. Plus it's so hard to make consistent in a singleton format.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
There are certainly PW that help aggro and midrange. Garruk Wildspeaker is a fantastic aggressive PW that adds another overrun effect plus un-taps lands to play more creatures. That card is amazing. But that's just it.
My primary point is how powerful these cards are and how much they've caused a shift in creature power levels to compensate. It's changed the game dramatically and forced aggro decks to be better and faster and control decks to be even more dominating as the game drags on (to counteract the faster more punishing aggro/midrange decks). The Aggro - Midrange - Control power line used to be a slight grade, now it's a steep 45 degree line.
As far as aggro decks curving out on turn 4, you can certainly build those if you want, I'm just not a fan of seeing 2-3 of them at the table because in order to do that, I have to run a massive number of 2 power one drops AND I'd have to find a way to make my players love aggro. Neither is something I care to do.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Thanks Lucid. And in a previous thread I mentioned that my cube meta could probably be broken (despite my efforts) by a group of really competitive players in the way Wtwlf keeps stating (finding the control deck that dominates and consistently beating everyone at the table with it). But that hasn't been an issue because my playgroup is really casual. It's less about winning for most of them and more about just having fun, seeing crazy plays and socializing. Part of that is the mentality of these gamers - they are role-players (we have a regular D&D session) which is not competitive in nature but more co-op. It's just a different mindset.
We tend to play a lot of two headed giant because 4 is the typical number of drafters and it allows more co-op style play.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/a-brief-timeline-of-cube-history.185/
About 4 or 5 posts down or so.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
Things are getting heated and derailed now. Here's just a friendly reminder to please keep things ontopic, and to not engage with one another in offtopic arguments. That means don't feed trolls and don't attack one another. Show restraint and don't even respond to offtopic arguments. Always be civil. There are places you can take offtopic discussion, assuming you maintain politeness.
We're currently reviewing the discussion in this thread and deciding what, if any, reprimands need to be given out. Meanwhile, we will be keeping an eye on this discussion, and we'll be jumping on top of things if they get too crazy.
This isn't the first mod request that you guys have received. Don't expect just a slap on the wrist if you fail to heed the rules or our intervention again.
Cheers,
Lanxal
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Again, I really don't think this is the case at all. Every theater has improved with the increase in card quality. What makes the A/M/C apply is how they fundamentally matchup against each other.
It wasn't bomb creatures that made control good against midrange. Midrange's creatures have improved just as much (if note more so, actually) than control's have.
Control is just as good against midrange now as it was in the early days of cubing.
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've yet to post an opinion in this thread, but I've really enjoyed reading along. I think AA's won the thread a few times now.
Aggro 4 life, yo.
Seriously, though... I've been an aggro player pretty much since day one of my Magic career. I bought a pack of Stronghold and a pack of Weatherlight and traded my rares (a Volrath's Stonghold and a Lotus Vale) for my first ever actual Magic: The Gathering deck. An utter pile of green and white nonsense packed full of Trained Armodons, Aurochs, and Iron Tusk Elephants. I loved turning creatures sideways and winning with damage. In 1998 a Propaganda across the table was my mortal enemy. My first competitive deck was my own Sui Black variant. I was also a big fan of 10-land Stompy and WW (splashing green for Rancor) back in the day.
Nowadays cube is all I play, so I want the things I love about playing Magic to be present in my cube experience. I can craft together a really sweet black aggressive deck and have a blast opening up with Carnophage, Dauthi Horror, Hymn to Tourach. It means I get to have as much fun playing now as I did in 1998 when I was 16 and didn't think Magic went much further than the lunch table at school.
To be honest, I don't think too much about the whole A/M/C dynamic. I agree with wtwlf, but mostly because I like having all three theaters represented. I like being able to get a taste of multiple archetypes. I can draft that black aggressive deck. Or I can first pick a Pox and go down that road. I can play Gruul with Kird Ape and Jungle Lion or I can play Gruul with Llanowar Elf and Huntmaster of the Fells. Hell, even blue gives me options. Sometimes it's Standstill, cheap flyers, and Kira, Great Glass Spinner. Other times it's Mana Drain, Wrath of God, and Aetherling. And even other times it's Grim Monolith and Upheaval. I support these three theaters in my cube because I like variety. I like that aggro is there if I want it. I also like that I get draft something different and play against my beloved aggro decks sometimes. This is what makes the cube draft fun for me.
No one is telling you that you're wrong, Gubbe85. You're not wrong. You're absolutely right... for your group. But what's right for your group is not right for my group (or Antknee's, or rant's, or wtwlf's). And that's ok. You should keep doing what you want to do because that's what your group enjoys when they cube draft. I don't, however, think you'll ever be able to convince myself or anyone arguing against your style of cubing that we're somehow doing it wrong.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
Every theater has improved, yes. But the creature power creep is more significant in the higher costed creatures. Control is BETTER against midrange than it used to be.
People are still running many of the three drops that existed from pre-M10 days. Even some 4 drops (Blastoderm is still around in some cubes). 5 and 6 drops though? That is much more slanted towards post M10 because the ones being printed now are ridiculous.
Take Baneslayer Angel (one of the biggest offenders). 5/5 flying with protection (granted not great protection), lifelink, and first strike. All for the same cost as Serra Angel (4/4 flying vigilance - no other abilities). I mean, it's silly really. It's like Wizards threw out all the rules of the game that had existed for 20 years and just decided to reinvent the wheel on what 5 mana should get you.
And that's just a 5 drop example. The 6 drops are just as bad if not worse. Grave Titan is a great example. 10 power for 6 mana. When did that become the norm? And you get 4 more power EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU ATTACK WITH IT. Compare that to the black Kamigawa dragon. 5/5 flying with zero other abilities while still alive (though the dying clause is a very nice life swing). Or better yet, compare it to skeletal vampire (which was a legitimate finisher in it's time). That was a 3/3 flyer with two 1/1 bats and a really costly make more bats ability (but the regenerate ability was really good).
It's night and day.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have new aggro 1 and 2 drops which are better than before but not nearly to the degree you see at higher converted mana costs. Great, I have savannah lions with protection from terminate. Joy.
This GREATLY favors control. In a really unfair way. Once Grave Titan hits the battlefield, as the aggro player you basically need to draw burn NOW and finish the control player off because you really have no other options at that point. All non-red aggro decks are basically done for. Against midrange, it's equally un-winnable, if not more so.
And this is just Grave Titan (not even the best 6 drop). Wurmcoil is even more game ending for midrange and aggro because of the stupid life swing (that is virtually unavoidable due to the dying clause - here you get 6 more power for free, 3 with lifelink because clearly control needs more help being stupidly good).
These finishers laugh at anything that was ever printed before and they are a big reason for the "control needs to be kept in check by aggro" mindset. Because a game of modern magic is over once the control player gets to 6 mana.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
I found Gubbe's 'combo winter' argument quite compelling, and maybe one day there are so many ridiculous bombs that some regulation will become necessary, but we're not there yet, if we ever will be.