I decided to give this a try because it fills a very specific spot (3 mana blue creature that's not 1UU) while being also a land. Not sure it will stay, but seems worth a test run.
I was pretty low on them MDFCs at first, but seeing a few sample starting hands featuring those cards (and being a tad mulligan-adverse myself) quickly changed my mind, maybe even steered me a bit into trying too MANY of them. Honestly, though, the cards I cut for the MDFCs weren't staples by any means, those cuts were easier than fitting something like Skyclave Shade (black 2 drops were already pretty tight). I feel some of the outright dismissals of MDFCs I've read here are pretty excessive.
1. How many modal taplands with discard abilities see cube play again?
The cycling dual lands from Amonkhet and the new Triomes are quite good, and more notably the mono-color Onslaught lands were quite good in our peasant cube back when we still played that, and these new flip cards are leagues better than those. So what is that, like 13 cubeable tap-lands that discard for value? Sounds like a precedent for success if I've ever heard one.
To add to this, look at Man Lands! Yes, you get to play those as the tap-land and then later in the game turn them on as creatures. These don't have that aspect, but the creature variants have the benefit of only requiring a mana-investment once. I played Treetop Village for a long long time, and the new Mammoth puts that card to shame IMO.
To put this into context, look at [[Blackbloom Rogue]], a card I'm sure many aren't even close to considering. If we had the "Treetop Village" variant of that, it would look like this:
---------------------------------
Blackbloom Land:
Blackbloom Land enters the battlefield tapped.
Tap: add black to your mana pool.
1B: Blackbloom Land becomes a 2/3 Human Rogue creature with menace until the end of the turn. Blackbloom Land gets +3/+0 as long as an opponent has eight or more cards in their graveyard.
-------------------------------
I don't know about you, but that card would have been in my cube for years, and would still be good enough for my cube today. I know it's not the same card, but it's not some far-off comparison. And I'd argue that Blackbloom Rogue is one of the worse MDFCs. It's going to take a while for all of us to evaluate and wrap our heads around these cards. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if it turns out that they don't belong in cubes. However, my current prior is that many will turn out to be staples.
That is a PRETTY far-off comparison TBQH. Manlands can be lands when you need them to be and creatures when you need them to be within the same game, and these can't. Further, the manlands dodge all sweepers and sorcery-speed removal. Finally, that land would be fine, not amazing. It's maybe on par with Treetop Village in a color that is less able to use a manland, and worse than conclave.
I am exiting this conversation after the response. I find the above response upsetting, as it ignores (maybe misunderstands?) my entire point and doesn't even recognize the positive mechanical differences. Below is my best attempt to reframe my point, and respond to comments relating to it.
That is a PRETTY far-off comparison TBQH. Manlands can be lands when you need them to be and creatures when you need them to be within the same game, and these can't.
That is literally the first statement I made in my comment. I address differences in my comparison, I would like to see the same. The statement I make about only needing to make the mana-investment once is quite significant. I bring it up in the context of this difference to shine a light that there are upsides that each have that the other doesn't.
Further, the manlands dodge all sweepers and sorcery-speed removal.
This is just another example of the above. Another "here's a place where X is better than Y" while ignoring that I do mention places where Y is greater than X.
Finally, that land would be fine, not amazing. It's maybe on par with Treetop Village in a color that is less able to use a manland, and worse than conclave.
And this is where I believe my point was simply missed. Focusing on black being less able to use the manland is like focusing on cubing Blackbloom Rogue. I never suggest to cube the card. I am just making an evaluative analogy as referenced at the top with "look at Man Lands". One that makes Blackbloom Rogue look at least cubable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I certainly don't plan on testing it, But if one of the worst MDFCs can be framed in such a manner that it at least seems enticing, does that not speak volumes for the mechanic in the abstract?
That makes me WAY more interested in cards like Silundi Vision and Khalni Ambush that I believe are significantly better than Blackbloom Rogue.
Anyways, I'm exiting the conversation now, and all future conversations about MDFCs unless they turn out to be bad, in which I will likely come back and admit I was wrong. I simply feel too strongly that this mechanic is absurd for Magic, and I have yet to see somebody make an argument that makes me believe otherwise.
Happy cubing y'all, and I hope you have as much fun with this set as I intend to!
- The 'you get both' aspect of manlands and utility lands continues to be significantly undervalued, imo. These cards are often actual sources of card advantage because you don't have to choose (see Shelldock Isle). You make land drops, trade resources with the opponent, and parity is eventually broken because your lands still do something relevant. These new dual types can only mirror part of that, making them significantly worse in a lot of scenarios.
- I think most would agree that save a few exceptions, the spell sides of these dual type cards aren't really cubable because they are not powerful enough (and obviously not the land part by itself either). Thus the power present in the card comes solely from the flexibility, the increase in keepable hands, the mitigating the risk of flooding out. But will including cards like these in your deck lead to more wins? Not necessarily. You'll keep more hands, and also play more monocolored tapped lands and overcosted spells, which are real costs well proven to lose games.
- There is actual precedent for these cards (or pretty damn close to it), and I don't really understand the aversion to compare the two. Lonely Sandbar is either a tapped Island, or a Reach Through Mists. Yes, you lose Island synergy and it doesn't count as a spell, which makes it a little worse (though you do get the actually great Loam interaction). Reach Through Mists is overcosted by 1 to be cubable, a tax I've seen here advertised as reasonable. Who runs Lonely Sandbar? I actually really like the card, but a tapped Island instead of an untapped one is such a huge liability that they don't make it.
- This part comes more down to how you look at Cube as a format. I think of my Cube as a way of drafting things that look like Constructed decks, where others have described Cube as closer to retail Limited with nothing but Bombs. I just can't see these cards making waves in the formats I mirror my Cube to, Modern and Legacy. Decks are crazy consistent, and efficiency is king. This is what I want for my Cube, and I know others don't want that, but it explains why these double types will likely never make it in my Cube (save those where the spell side is Constructed worthy by itself). They simply can't play an essential role in the decks I try to draft, these slick Constructed-like killing machines.
- Similar to my last point, in Limited consistency is worth a lot. In Constructed I feel you have to actually do something powerful, and games end way more often with one player holding a bunch of irrelevant cards. I've found especially in recent years that board advantage is crucial in Cube (power creep and especially planeswalkers have contributed to this), and to get board advantage you need to be fast, or strong. These cards are neither, as they are always slow (tapped or overcosted) and the spell side is weak by design.
I've found this whole discussion somewhat frustrating as I seem pretty fully convinced of my side of it, and it looks like the other side feels the same way. Maybe my Cube (and how I think about Cube in general) has evolved in a completely different direction, and therefore I operate with a different set of values. Nonetheless I think there's some value in trying to explain why I think these cards aren't nearly as good as advertised by some, simply because it's the opposite viewpoint compared to that shared by many.
Okay, I lied, I'm responding one more time because I LOVE the response above from Fires, and wanted to do more than upvote!
I think all of that logic and evaluation is sound, and I absolutely see where you're coming from. I think we have different expectations for the mechanic as a whole. For example, I expect many of these cards to see constructed play all the way from Standard down to Legacy. They all won't, just like all magic cards don't, but many will. Thank you so much for outlining your expectations, beliefs, and evaluations so clearly. I really appreciated it!
I just believe these cards change the game significantly. And I will happily admit I'm wrong if proven otherwise.
Cheers! And for anybody else who stays in the discussion, enjoy
- I think most would agree that save a few exceptions, the spell sides of these dual type cards aren't really cubable because they are not powerful enough (and obviously not the land part by itself either). Thus the power present in the card comes solely from the flexibility, the increase in keepable hands, the mitigating the risk of flooding out. But will including cards like these in your deck lead to more wins? Not necessarily. You'll keep more hands, and also play more monocolored tapped lands and overcosted spells, which are real costs well proven to lose games.
I don't agree with this. This is the case for all modal cards. Lots of good cards with multiple options require you to overpay to have access to the effect, and lots of them are great. Izzet Charm, for example, is a collection of effects that are nowhere close to ever being worth 2 mana and 2 colors to have access to. But even though I'm overpaying for that Spell Pierce or overpaying for that creature-only Shock, the card is great because I have access to multiple options. MDFCs also give me multiple options, even if neither of the modes would be cubeworthy on their own. Flexibility, even when overcosted, wins games of Magic. My Izzet decks are better with Izzet Charm. My red decks are better with Abrade. My black decks are better with Collective Brutality. Those kinds of cards lead to wins. And MDFCs will too.
Quote from Fires »
- There is actual precedent for these cards (or pretty damn close to it), and I don't really understand the aversion to compare the two. Lonely Sandbar is either a tapped Island, or a Reach Through Mists. Yes, you lose Island synergy and it doesn't count as a spell, which makes it a little worse (though you do get the actually great Loam interaction). Reach Through Mists is overcosted by 1 to be cubable, a tax I've seen here advertised as reasonable. Who runs Lonely Sandbar? I actually really like the card, but a tapped Island instead of an untapped one is such a huge liability that they don't make it.
A cantrip (with no additional upside that doesn't provide any actual card selection) and a meaningful spell are two different things. I can cycle Lonely Sandbar, but that's not a meaningful spell in the same way the spell sides of MDFCs are. And that's part of the point here. This isn't cycling. This is something much different, and in my opinion, something much better.
A MDFC is a spell or a land. Lonely Sandbar is a Land or (maybe a spell, or maybe another land). Cycling is simply a different function than this mechanic.
Quote from Fires »
I've found this whole discussion somewhat frustrating as I seem pretty fully convinced of my side of it, and it looks like the other side feels the same way.
Anyways, I'm exiting the conversation now, and all future conversations about MDFCs unless they turn out to be bad, in which I will likely come back and admit I was wrong. I simply feel too strongly that this mechanic is absurd for Magic, and I have yet to see somebody make an argument that makes me believe otherwise.
Happy cubing y'all, and I hope you have as much fun with this set as I intend to!
Snipped for length purposes
You specifically said it was not a far-off comparison. I think it is. And I think these lands are pretty good! I'm testing like 5 or 6 of them! I just don't think manlands are a particularly useful comparison.
I agree that Izzet Charm, Abrade and Collective Brutality are all great Cube cards. Something they all have in common is that they cost 2 mana to remove a card, which is an acceptable rate, just like the Quench and Naturalize example from before. While the specific effects are overcosted, in practice countering something with Quench or Counterspell doesn't make a difference, when it's live it works all the same. Obviously Counterspell is way better because it always works, but the rate is the same. Killing something with the red X-spell will usually cost a disproportionate amount of mana. It's flexible, but not efficient mana-wise.
What function does a Reach Through Mists have? It gets you closer to the relevant cards in your deck when the land isn't what you want. With these new cards, you're banking that the spell part is something that is actually useful, and I think often it won't be, because it's so inefficient or narrow. I think for example Censor is several leagues better than the dual type version because it has actual relevance in the late game, covering the spell part's main weakness. Cycling is a proven great mechanic, and I think this new one can be great too (even for Cube) but only if the spell sides are efficient enough.
That being said, it seems pretty obvious nobody's switching sides here Time will tell!
And I think the best of the MDFCs also have acceptable rates for the spells. A lot of folks have success with cards like Vraska's Contempt and the like ...the Mauling can also kill a creature for 4 mana (sometimes 3 even) and exchanges the 'walker removal option for the ability to be a land when you need one. Cloning one of my creatures for 3 mana is one of the modes I can use a Metamorph for, but with the Mimic, I don't lose life, it can't be shattered and I can play it as a land. I lose the creature side of Den Protector, but I can get the regrowth effect for less overall mana than that card and I can also play it as a land. Each example is pairing two slightly-less-than-optimal effects and rolling them up together to get value.
And I've also explained the reasons why I think the MDFC land option is better than cycling in the cases where the two mechanics really differ. What MDFCs can do to improve the quantity of keepable opening hands, improve the spell/land ratio and prevent losing games to screw/flood is just great value. Cycling helps with some of those issues, but it doesn't straight-up fix them, because there's a lot of consistency issues w/ random card replacement. We just don't seem to agree on these points, or how to value that aspect of the card. I think it's worth at least 1 in order to have access to those upsides. Other folks don't. And that's okay.
I'm not firmly in either camp, I think a handful of the MDFC's will earn their place, many will not. I'm going to watch some more streams to get a better appreciation of how these play. It will be particularly telling if we start seeing these go mid-pack during the ZNR draft streams. Cube cards don't generally go mid-pack in their respective draft formats.
Yes, Metamorph is better at being a Clone than Mimic is, and I don't think anyone is arguing that.
And there's a hell of a lot more to evaluating these cards than what pick order they fall in during their respective retail limited drafts. I'm interested in seeing how they play in cube. That will be what's telling in regards to how good they are in cube.
My point was that Mirror Image is a much better reference point for this card than Phyrexian Metamorph for this card since it is a much closer analog.
You're making a Straw Man argument from my comments about watching streams from standard and ZNR limited gameplay. At no point did I suggest that my evaluation of these cards for cube stops with determinations I make solely from watching standard and limited gameplay. I didn't feel the need to make the obvious disclaimer that cube is its own format and that results in one format don't directly translate to another, but I guess I'll have to do that. Besides which, limited and/or standard has always informed cube to some extent. Pack Rat and more recently Uro are fine examples of this. Pack Rat's domination of its respective limited format is what turned many cube designer's on to the card. Similarly, Uro was not thought of as a top 3 Simic card early on - it definitely is now after dominating a standard season and looking like its going to keep on defining standard post-rotation. And before you say it.....I also appreciate that cube designers have also tested these cards directly in cube and its performance there is ultimately why people are continuing to run these cards in cube. I still contend that standard and limited gameplay helps cube designers to obtain an early appreciation for how these cards perform that--in conjunction with other factors--informs decisions to test and by extension include certain cards. This is especially true in the midst of a pandemic that makes getting together for testing by way of drafting unworkable.
My point regarding the Mimic was about rate, not function. So it's the same.
Opposite of my intentions with the comments about limited. Only pointing out that how they perform in cube will be independent from their performance in other formats. Correlation ≠ causation, and all that good stuff.
There's cool information that can be obtained by watching them in limited and standard. But the only thing that matters in the end is how well they do in the cube. Hopefully by watching the other formats I can learn some cool tricks of the trade to make them perform even better in cube.
I don’t think the power level of these is something that makes searching for a land by caveat, impressive. Cute, but not impressive.
I fully expect people to recant their praise for these cards to some extent, but if instead they double down - then good on them I guess.
These are all, a pretty easy pass for me. None of them have enough power for me to consider the marginal gains as anything more than slight deck building boons that offer virtually no statistical leverage.
With all due respect, not only do I completely disagree, but it sounds like you just stuck a bunch of words together in an attempt to make your reasoning sound more solid. I know contextually what you're trying to say, but I guarantee you those words don't mean what you think they mean in that particular order lol
I mean, my mother is an English Major. I think I articulated that exactly as intended and I think it means exactly what it says...
But anyways, I think this has been a good discussion on MDFC’s. I also believe this conversation has run its course. All it is now, is rehashing of the same talking points. Fires has really illustrated the heart of the issue here, and there really isn’t much more to be had.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LEGACY|UWStonebladeCOMMANDER|UBGThe Mimeoplsm Ooze & Aghhs!MODERN|UWAzorius Control THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
Yikes. That's a take.
I mean, to think that confirmation bias isn't going to root itself in such a polarized discussion... is kind of naive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LEGACY|UWStonebladeCOMMANDER|UBGThe Mimeoplsm Ooze & Aghhs!MODERN|UWAzorius Control THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
Good lord, what an awful take. I mean, the exact same thing could be said about the MDFC haters ...but nobody's making that argument because it's a complete garbage take.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
Good lord, what an awful take. I mean, the exact same thing could be said about the MDFC haters ...but nobody's making that argument because it's a complete garbage take.
But whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
Hey people.
Been a while I haven't posted in this forum, so long in fact that I had to get a new account since I don't remember the previous one. I apologize in advance: I don't do internet well and my speech could feel a bit rough though no harm intended. But seing how the conversation went from making me laugh to making me...sad? I wanted to provide with an insight of what you probably know but might be needed to be reminded with: how a cube could be managed.
First time seing these cards, I found them bad plain and simple. So I went to check on with the people I play and got the same response: "I don't wanna draft tap lands/bad spells in your cube", "If I want lands I can pick them at the end of my draft: they are better since they come untapped" etc.
Seeing other cube managers I know and respect also almost dismiss those cards made me wondering why people in this forum were so ridiculously into it.
So what do you do? You don't like them, people who usually play with don't like them so one way would be to not play them. As simple as that. No need to think about it twice, no need to lose time to demean or enrage with people who has the opposite opinion on the internet to attempt to prove them wrong.
But now you may think that seing these people so into playing those weird spell-taplands, that might be an indicator that you might be missing something big. So because you want the best for your cube group and you want to make them grow into the game, you have to be open minded and you might now be thinking: "Ok, I don't like those cards, but let's confirm this by actually play the cards".
Next cube is coming and you got some of them for cheap at the prerelease and made proxies of the rest. But remember, your group is relunctant and so you are. You don't want to even draft them. What do you do?
Well, I am in this situation and what I plan to do is at the end of the draft having every player telling me one of the colors they play and they will get one of the appropriate color at random. So eveybody can experiment them and I can get multiple feedback through two/three drafts. And at the end, we take a collegial decision: are they worth it? If yes, which one?
As simple as that. No harm done, people from your group feels like they are participating in making the cube and you avoid missing anything relevant because of a punctual lack of open mindedness.
I do the same for every card everyone is relunctant with except some weird guy that is into with a defendeable opinion of it.
So guys, no need to internet-fight, no need for those one liners that hurts to see. Just find a way to try them and have your actual own opinion of it.
Never thought to see 90+ comments on a card like this^^
Irrespective of flavour, emotions of people seem to be strong with respect to these cards. A bit too strong for my taste..
Keep a cool head everybody. Enjoy the new cards and the possibility of getting a draft round together if that is possible. Don't let emotions get the better of you.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
Good lord, what an awful take. I mean, the exact same thing could be said about the MDFC haters ...but nobody's making that argument because it's a complete garbage take.
But whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I will say this, I think the discussion on MDFC's is probably one of the best discussions this Cube forum has ever seen. I disagree with the assessment of these cards when it comes to their overall weight for average powered cubes. But this discussion has elevated itself to a really important idea of the design of Cube itself. Readers have been given a lot to chew on, and I believe that this discussion on MDFC's can really help new Cube designers think more critically about the cards they inject into their cubes.
You are right, my sentiment also applies to nay-sayers like myself who are actively avoiding the chance to expose themselves to experience which might disprove their stance on MDFC's. But the burden of proof really falls to those who believe in these cards, which is why I omitted naysayers (whos arguments can kind of be summed up to nothing more than circular logic). The catch 22 is that, people who believe in these cards have presented very valid claims as to why MDFD's like these have a legitimate claim for being cube worthy and I think those claims are easier to double down on.
I really look forward to seeing how these cards work out for people, but pretty much the only thing that is going to sway me at this point - is hearing a naysayer recant after reluctantly giving these cards a shot. I don't think I will weigh the experience of people who believe in these cards, all that heavily though.
From a game design standpoint, these cards are insane to me. I commend WOTC for this kind of mechanic, the designer in me loves them. I don't think there is anything wrong with people putting these cards into their cubes, in fact I think some cubes are great homes for these cards. As it pertains to my powered cube, I think these cards missed the bar, and I think they had a little more wiggle room for WOTC to push them.
EDIT
I also didn't mean for my hot take to come off as *****ty as it did, I apologize.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LEGACY|UWStonebladeCOMMANDER|UBGThe Mimeoplsm Ooze & Aghhs!MODERN|UWAzorius Control THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
I was pretty low on them MDFCs at first, but seeing a few sample starting hands featuring those cards (and being a tad mulligan-adverse myself) quickly changed my mind, maybe even steered me a bit into trying too MANY of them. Honestly, though, the cards I cut for the MDFCs weren't staples by any means, those cuts were easier than fitting something like Skyclave Shade (black 2 drops were already pretty tight). I feel some of the outright dismissals of MDFCs I've read here are pretty excessive.
The cycling dual lands from Amonkhet and the new Triomes are quite good, and more notably the mono-color Onslaught lands were quite good in our peasant cube back when we still played that, and these new flip cards are leagues better than those. So what is that, like 13 cubeable tap-lands that discard for value? Sounds like a precedent for success if I've ever heard one.
To put this into context, look at [[Blackbloom Rogue]], a card I'm sure many aren't even close to considering. If we had the "Treetop Village" variant of that, it would look like this:
---------------------------------
Blackbloom Land:
Blackbloom Land enters the battlefield tapped.
Tap: add black to your mana pool.
1B: Blackbloom Land becomes a 2/3 Human Rogue creature with menace until the end of the turn. Blackbloom Land gets +3/+0 as long as an opponent has eight or more cards in their graveyard.
-------------------------------
I don't know about you, but that card would have been in my cube for years, and would still be good enough for my cube today. I know it's not the same card, but it's not some far-off comparison. And I'd argue that Blackbloom Rogue is one of the worse MDFCs. It's going to take a while for all of us to evaluate and wrap our heads around these cards. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if it turns out that they don't belong in cubes. However, my current prior is that many will turn out to be staples.
Social Media: Twitter, Twitch
MTG Articles: 200+ Articles on StarCityGames.com, MTG Draft AI Article
MTG AI Code: Limited Draft Bot, CubeCobra Recommender System
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
That is literally the first statement I made in my comment. I address differences in my comparison, I would like to see the same. The statement I make about only needing to make the mana-investment once is quite significant. I bring it up in the context of this difference to shine a light that there are upsides that each have that the other doesn't.
This is just another example of the above. Another "here's a place where X is better than Y" while ignoring that I do mention places where Y is greater than X.
And this is where I believe my point was simply missed. Focusing on black being less able to use the manland is like focusing on cubing Blackbloom Rogue. I never suggest to cube the card. I am just making an evaluative analogy as referenced at the top with "look at Man Lands". One that makes Blackbloom Rogue look at least cubable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I certainly don't plan on testing it, But if one of the worst MDFCs can be framed in such a manner that it at least seems enticing, does that not speak volumes for the mechanic in the abstract?
That makes me WAY more interested in cards like Silundi Vision and Khalni Ambush that I believe are significantly better than Blackbloom Rogue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, I'm exiting the conversation now, and all future conversations about MDFCs unless they turn out to be bad, in which I will likely come back and admit I was wrong. I simply feel too strongly that this mechanic is absurd for Magic, and I have yet to see somebody make an argument that makes me believe otherwise.
Happy cubing y'all, and I hope you have as much fun with this set as I intend to!
Social Media: Twitter, Twitch
MTG Articles: 200+ Articles on StarCityGames.com, MTG Draft AI Article
MTG AI Code: Limited Draft Bot, CubeCobra Recommender System
- The 'you get both' aspect of manlands and utility lands continues to be significantly undervalued, imo. These cards are often actual sources of card advantage because you don't have to choose (see Shelldock Isle). You make land drops, trade resources with the opponent, and parity is eventually broken because your lands still do something relevant. These new dual types can only mirror part of that, making them significantly worse in a lot of scenarios.
- I think most would agree that save a few exceptions, the spell sides of these dual type cards aren't really cubable because they are not powerful enough (and obviously not the land part by itself either). Thus the power present in the card comes solely from the flexibility, the increase in keepable hands, the mitigating the risk of flooding out. But will including cards like these in your deck lead to more wins? Not necessarily. You'll keep more hands, and also play more monocolored tapped lands and overcosted spells, which are real costs well proven to lose games.
- There is actual precedent for these cards (or pretty damn close to it), and I don't really understand the aversion to compare the two. Lonely Sandbar is either a tapped Island, or a Reach Through Mists. Yes, you lose Island synergy and it doesn't count as a spell, which makes it a little worse (though you do get the actually great Loam interaction). Reach Through Mists is overcosted by 1 to be cubable, a tax I've seen here advertised as reasonable. Who runs Lonely Sandbar? I actually really like the card, but a tapped Island instead of an untapped one is such a huge liability that they don't make it.
- This part comes more down to how you look at Cube as a format. I think of my Cube as a way of drafting things that look like Constructed decks, where others have described Cube as closer to retail Limited with nothing but Bombs. I just can't see these cards making waves in the formats I mirror my Cube to, Modern and Legacy. Decks are crazy consistent, and efficiency is king. This is what I want for my Cube, and I know others don't want that, but it explains why these double types will likely never make it in my Cube (save those where the spell side is Constructed worthy by itself). They simply can't play an essential role in the decks I try to draft, these slick Constructed-like killing machines.
- Similar to my last point, in Limited consistency is worth a lot. In Constructed I feel you have to actually do something powerful, and games end way more often with one player holding a bunch of irrelevant cards. I've found especially in recent years that board advantage is crucial in Cube (power creep and especially planeswalkers have contributed to this), and to get board advantage you need to be fast, or strong. These cards are neither, as they are always slow (tapped or overcosted) and the spell side is weak by design.
I've found this whole discussion somewhat frustrating as I seem pretty fully convinced of my side of it, and it looks like the other side feels the same way. Maybe my Cube (and how I think about Cube in general) has evolved in a completely different direction, and therefore I operate with a different set of values. Nonetheless I think there's some value in trying to explain why I think these cards aren't nearly as good as advertised by some, simply because it's the opposite viewpoint compared to that shared by many.
I think all of that logic and evaluation is sound, and I absolutely see where you're coming from. I think we have different expectations for the mechanic as a whole. For example, I expect many of these cards to see constructed play all the way from Standard down to Legacy. They all won't, just like all magic cards don't, but many will. Thank you so much for outlining your expectations, beliefs, and evaluations so clearly. I really appreciated it!
I just believe these cards change the game significantly. And I will happily admit I'm wrong if proven otherwise.
Cheers! And for anybody else who stays in the discussion, enjoy
Social Media: Twitter, Twitch
MTG Articles: 200+ Articles on StarCityGames.com, MTG Draft AI Article
MTG AI Code: Limited Draft Bot, CubeCobra Recommender System
I don't agree with this. This is the case for all modal cards. Lots of good cards with multiple options require you to overpay to have access to the effect, and lots of them are great. Izzet Charm, for example, is a collection of effects that are nowhere close to ever being worth 2 mana and 2 colors to have access to. But even though I'm overpaying for that Spell Pierce or overpaying for that creature-only Shock, the card is great because I have access to multiple options. MDFCs also give me multiple options, even if neither of the modes would be cubeworthy on their own. Flexibility, even when overcosted, wins games of Magic. My Izzet decks are better with Izzet Charm. My red decks are better with Abrade. My black decks are better with Collective Brutality. Those kinds of cards lead to wins. And MDFCs will too.
A cantrip (with no additional upside that doesn't provide any actual card selection) and a meaningful spell are two different things. I can cycle Lonely Sandbar, but that's not a meaningful spell in the same way the spell sides of MDFCs are. And that's part of the point here. This isn't cycling. This is something much different, and in my opinion, something much better.
A MDFC is a spell or a land. Lonely Sandbar is a Land or (maybe a spell, or maybe another land). Cycling is simply a different function than this mechanic.
Tell me about it.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Snipped for length purposes
You specifically said it was not a far-off comparison. I think it is. And I think these lands are pretty good! I'm testing like 5 or 6 of them! I just don't think manlands are a particularly useful comparison.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
What function does a Reach Through Mists have? It gets you closer to the relevant cards in your deck when the land isn't what you want. With these new cards, you're banking that the spell part is something that is actually useful, and I think often it won't be, because it's so inefficient or narrow. I think for example Censor is several leagues better than the dual type version because it has actual relevance in the late game, covering the spell part's main weakness. Cycling is a proven great mechanic, and I think this new one can be great too (even for Cube) but only if the spell sides are efficient enough.
That being said, it seems pretty obvious nobody's switching sides here Time will tell!
And I've also explained the reasons why I think the MDFC land option is better than cycling in the cases where the two mechanics really differ. What MDFCs can do to improve the quantity of keepable opening hands, improve the spell/land ratio and prevent losing games to screw/flood is just great value. Cycling helps with some of those issues, but it doesn't straight-up fix them, because there's a lot of consistency issues w/ random card replacement. We just don't seem to agree on these points, or how to value that aspect of the card. I think it's worth at least 1 in order to have access to those upsides. Other folks don't. And that's okay.
So ya, time will tell, I guess.
Cheers, and thanks for the good discussion.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I'm not firmly in either camp, I think a handful of the MDFC's will earn their place, many will not. I'm going to watch some more streams to get a better appreciation of how these play. It will be particularly telling if we start seeing these go mid-pack during the ZNR draft streams. Cube cards don't generally go mid-pack in their respective draft formats.
And there's a hell of a lot more to evaluating these cards than what pick order they fall in during their respective retail limited drafts. I'm interested in seeing how they play in cube. That will be what's telling in regards to how good they are in cube.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
You're making a Straw Man argument from my comments about watching streams from standard and ZNR limited gameplay. At no point did I suggest that my evaluation of these cards for cube stops with determinations I make solely from watching standard and limited gameplay. I didn't feel the need to make the obvious disclaimer that cube is its own format and that results in one format don't directly translate to another, but I guess I'll have to do that. Besides which, limited and/or standard has always informed cube to some extent. Pack Rat and more recently Uro are fine examples of this. Pack Rat's domination of its respective limited format is what turned many cube designer's on to the card. Similarly, Uro was not thought of as a top 3 Simic card early on - it definitely is now after dominating a standard season and looking like its going to keep on defining standard post-rotation. And before you say it.....I also appreciate that cube designers have also tested these cards directly in cube and its performance there is ultimately why people are continuing to run these cards in cube. I still contend that standard and limited gameplay helps cube designers to obtain an early appreciation for how these cards perform that--in conjunction with other factors--informs decisions to test and by extension include certain cards. This is especially true in the midst of a pandemic that makes getting together for testing by way of drafting unworkable.
Opposite of my intentions with the comments about limited. Only pointing out that how they perform in cube will be independent from their performance in other formats. Correlation ≠ causation, and all that good stuff.
There's cool information that can be obtained by watching them in limited and standard. But the only thing that matters in the end is how well they do in the cube. Hopefully by watching the other formats I can learn some cool tricks of the trade to make them perform even better in cube.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I mean, my mother is an English Major. I think I articulated that exactly as intended and I think it means exactly what it says...
But anyways, I think this has been a good discussion on MDFC’s. I also believe this conversation has run its course. All it is now, is rehashing of the same talking points. Fires has really illustrated the heart of the issue here, and there really isn’t much more to be had.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
Yikes. That's a take.
I mean, to think that confirmation bias isn't going to root itself in such a polarized discussion... is kind of naive.
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
Good lord, what an awful take. I mean, the exact same thing could be said about the MDFC haters ...but nobody's making that argument because it's a complete garbage take.
But whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Hey people.
Been a while I haven't posted in this forum, so long in fact that I had to get a new account since I don't remember the previous one. I apologize in advance: I don't do internet well and my speech could feel a bit rough though no harm intended. But seing how the conversation went from making me laugh to making me...sad? I wanted to provide with an insight of what you probably know but might be needed to be reminded with: how a cube could be managed.
First time seing these cards, I found them bad plain and simple. So I went to check on with the people I play and got the same response: "I don't wanna draft tap lands/bad spells in your cube", "If I want lands I can pick them at the end of my draft: they are better since they come untapped" etc.
Seeing other cube managers I know and respect also almost dismiss those cards made me wondering why people in this forum were so ridiculously into it.
So what do you do? You don't like them, people who usually play with don't like them so one way would be to not play them. As simple as that. No need to think about it twice, no need to lose time to demean or enrage with people who has the opposite opinion on the internet to attempt to prove them wrong.
But now you may think that seing these people so into playing those weird spell-taplands, that might be an indicator that you might be missing something big. So because you want the best for your cube group and you want to make them grow into the game, you have to be open minded and you might now be thinking: "Ok, I don't like those cards, but let's confirm this by actually play the cards".
Next cube is coming and you got some of them for cheap at the prerelease and made proxies of the rest. But remember, your group is relunctant and so you are. You don't want to even draft them. What do you do?
Well, I am in this situation and what I plan to do is at the end of the draft having every player telling me one of the colors they play and they will get one of the appropriate color at random. So eveybody can experiment them and I can get multiple feedback through two/three drafts. And at the end, we take a collegial decision: are they worth it? If yes, which one?
As simple as that. No harm done, people from your group feels like they are participating in making the cube and you avoid missing anything relevant because of a punctual lack of open mindedness.
I do the same for every card everyone is relunctant with except some weird guy that is into with a defendeable opinion of it.
So guys, no need to internet-fight, no need for those one liners that hurts to see. Just find a way to try them and have your actual own opinion of it.
Cheers
Irrespective of flavour, emotions of people seem to be strong with respect to these cards. A bit too strong for my taste..
Keep a cool head everybody. Enjoy the new cards and the possibility of getting a draft round together if that is possible. Don't let emotions get the better of you.
I will say this, I think the discussion on MDFC's is probably one of the best discussions this Cube forum has ever seen. I disagree with the assessment of these cards when it comes to their overall weight for average powered cubes. But this discussion has elevated itself to a really important idea of the design of Cube itself. Readers have been given a lot to chew on, and I believe that this discussion on MDFC's can really help new Cube designers think more critically about the cards they inject into their cubes.
You are right, my sentiment also applies to nay-sayers like myself who are actively avoiding the chance to expose themselves to experience which might disprove their stance on MDFC's. But the burden of proof really falls to those who believe in these cards, which is why I omitted naysayers (whos arguments can kind of be summed up to nothing more than circular logic). The catch 22 is that, people who believe in these cards have presented very valid claims as to why MDFD's like these have a legitimate claim for being cube worthy and I think those claims are easier to double down on.
I really look forward to seeing how these cards work out for people, but pretty much the only thing that is going to sway me at this point - is hearing a naysayer recant after reluctantly giving these cards a shot. I don't think I will weigh the experience of people who believe in these cards, all that heavily though.
From a game design standpoint, these cards are insane to me. I commend WOTC for this kind of mechanic, the designer in me loves them. I don't think there is anything wrong with people putting these cards into their cubes, in fact I think some cubes are great homes for these cards. As it pertains to my powered cube, I think these cards missed the bar, and I think they had a little more wiggle room for WOTC to push them.
EDIT
I also didn't mean for my hot take to come off as *****ty as it did, I apologize.
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
I'm only playing the first one at 360.
360 card powered Chicago cube:
https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/e7r
2020 Numerical Power Rankings:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-card-and-archetype/817969-2020-numerical-cube-power-rankings
2018 CubeTutor Power Rankings:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-card-and-archetype/803301-cubetutor-power-rankings-2018-by-color-and-cmc
Thanks for apologizing. I've had to do it a couple of times over a few threads myself regarding this topic.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!