Yep, it's awesome! We might start converting more normal cubers at this rate
It's great, and that's the main reason I want to try Cloud out. Being even close to as good as Moment's Peace is a hell of a lot better than lots of cards in the cube.
It's worse than Snakeform, but I still think that if you want to run it, it would hardly be bad. The main problem though is that in most blue decks you'll just splash for better removal anyway.
It's much closer to Neck Snap than Terminate and blue's a color that typically would rather attack with evasive creatures than hold a creature back for snapping a creature's neck. Not really a fan.
Has anyone played with Ravenous Skirge? It seems at least decent, possibly better than some of the other black 3 drops. Though personally I don't know what to cut from my cube, Mindstab Thrull?
I like the Skirge, it's 3 evasive power for 2B. Better than Daggerclaw Imp and that's an uncommon!
Not a fan of Radiant's Judgment (or Reprisal, for that matter.) Too restrictive. Light seems pretty good, worse than the options that many already run (Sunlance, Journey, Pacifism, Temporal Isolation) but it may be good enough for commons.
I've been considering Accorder's Shield lately, it's a card that I've gained a bit more respect for lately, but I don't know if it's good enough.
On Accorder's Shield: Yeah, it's decent in Scar's draft. That's not because it's good but because it's effect is worth it in the format even with the high price. Same might be true in this format, but I doubt it as it isn't really a very efficient way of stopping aggro, Steel Wall may even be better.
Defribulator question: Is Lat-Nan's Legacy worth running? No real card advantage but will often provide virtual card advantage as one card may well be more or less blank. On the other hand it's only really an instant speed Ponder variant for 1U. (Strange other bonus VS discard, too)
It's interesting - instant speed is really good - but I think that blue is already flooded with this kind of card draw in the 1 and 2 CMC sections to consider it.
Which isn't a fair comparison, since I might be playing Portent anyway.
Although looking at it, when the Cube Evaluations 2CMC Noncreatures come around, I may reconsider. /shrugs
Yeah, thinking about Legacy, one of us really has to test it. It's sooo much better than See Beyond and that's hardly a bad card. However, it might not perform for some or another reason, so I'll give it some testing.
I'm one of those that does think that See Beyond is bad. 2 mana for 0 net cards at sorcery speed just doesn't sound very appealing. I think Divination is better than See Beyond or its twin Instant brother.
These cards are not much at all like Ponder or Brainstorm and I don't really understand the comparison.
For those who run Masters Edition cards, several cards became commons in the set:
Foul Spirit (pretty decent in decks like aggro which won't care as much if the land is dead) Mightstone (Orcish Oriflamme but it helps both sides? Not a fan.) Phantasmal Forces (seems pretty decent, but not a staple by any means. It having flying helps mitigate its 1 toughness by a LOT.) Ogre Taskmaster (not bad, 4 power for 4 mana's hard to come by in red. No one's really running Order of the Sacred Bell in green, though.) Obsianus Golem (pretty good body for the format, a butt of 6 is pretty huge. Though if it does come in, I doubt that it'd stay once Scars block is done.) Brass Man (Steel Wall upgrade?) Alluring Scent (Slightly cheaper than Shinen of Life's Roar for the effect, but the fact that it can't be a creature seems like it hurts more than the 1 mana benefit.) Primal Clay (seems pretty decent, although none of its forms are particularly efficient.) Oasis (no.) Just Fate (I could be predictable and say "Just don't play this." ...oh.) Ironhoof Ox (I think that the other 4G 4/4s are better.) Goblin Firestarter (seems not too bad, although its sorcery-speed only use hurts it a lot. Probably not good enough, even though Fanatic's amazing.) Glasses of Urza (also no.) Flying Carpet (So overcosted.) Ebony Horse (also a huge no.) Warp Artifact (no) Tawnos's Wand (no)
I guess I'll repost here, with some additions, since this might be the "appropriate" thread for pauper cube discussion.
Hi guys, just joined the forums, the only cards I have are the ones that I got for my pauper cube, which I based off Lanxal's cube initially. I've mostly only done Winstons with it, but I've been doing a lot of pruning and adding based on some of the discussions in this forum.
What I'm most interested in talking about are the different philosophies that a pauper cube can be built around, and whether those philosophies can be adequately supported in a pauper cube. For example, there has been a lot of discussion regarding blue aggro support in pauper cube. Can pauper cubes really support that archetype given the limited cards at their disposal, while not eviscerating archetypes like draw-go?
Another question worth thinking about: given the emphasis in pauper cube towards building "solid" decks, does the size of the cube (e.g. 360 v 720) cube matter more for pauper than for regular cubes? This question is provoked by one poster's difficulty in balancing cards of varying power levels (he says that having bonesplitter & leonin scimitar out allowed him to dominate games), which means that games are more luck-based.
Finally, thanks Lanxal for initiating all these projects that have really pushed the discussion on pauper cubing. I feel like it's almost as fun to follow the conversation as it is to play.
----------------
More food for thought -
How much artifact destruction should be put into the cube? My artifact section doesn't contain a whole lot of cards that need to be taken care of: Bonesplitter, Vulshok, Leonin Bola, and a couple of similar equipments are the main targets, creatures like Spire Golem or Steel Wall deserve artifact removal as well. There really are very few artifact creatures that demand removal, though, and beside equipment most of the artifacts I run are 1 time use items (a la executioner's capsule) or just mana fixing. Is it worth taking out overpowered equipment so that overall creature quality can be improved (by taking out cards like Gorilla Shaman, for example).
Given that pauper games are often more straight-forward than regular pauper games (I'm assuming), those of you who run smaller cubes, do you put cards on rotation so that you'll have variety, or do you just stick to a small set of tightly selected cards? When I read about people building 360 card cubes so that every card is used in every 8-man draft, I feel like playing the cube would get very repetitive after a few plays. Do you guys, based on your experience, feel this way? What is a good way to combat repetition?
Given that pauper cards are usually more straightforward than regular cube cards, what are some strategies you use to increase player decision-making? Do you focus on decision-making at the drafting stage? Or do you focus on decision-making during games? Do you prioritize cards like cyclers?
I've already answered the first half of that post in my thread.
Artifact destruction is definitely a place that needs consideration. I think I need to add more desturction in my cube, for example. However, I don't understand this logic:
Is it worth taking out overpowered equipment so that overall creature quality can be improved (by taking out cards like Gorilla Shaman, for example).
Cards like Gorilla Shaman are powerful because artifacts are powerful. You're not improving creature quality by this. What you're doing is removing good artifacts, which then lowers of the quality of the Shaman and ilk, which then you remove because they are no longer good enough. You're removing answers and an interesting level of interaction of the cube while not actually adding anything back.
I can't really answer the question on cube sizes, since I run a pretty large cube. However, I think this question is true for normal cube too, so you would get a better answer if you ask the general community.
That's a very important point you bring up: the power of decision making and interactions in pauper cube is one that must be kept in mind because the environment is inherently 'simple', without complexity from uncommons and rares. The most important thing to Pauper, I think, is synergy and interactions of cards; that is where most of Pauper cube's 'fun' and power comes from. Not the individual cards, but the way they interact that brings the cube to the next level.
The way people do this is varied. I may even explore it in an article (seriously, too many article ideas and not enough actual writing). I think the simplest and the most important method, though, is answers. For example, you talked about artifacts a few paragraphs ago. This is actually a perfect example, since it shows how you can kill two stones with one bird. By adding artifact removal, such as Gorilla Shaman and Smash to Smithereens, you both quell the artifact problem, add a very interesting layer of interaction that forces more player decision during the drafting, deckbuilding, actually playing and sideboarding, as well as add to the overall power level of the cube (power begets power).
I'll save any more rambling I have for when I actually do my article.
Yeah, this is the right thread. Don't know where you posted it before, that may have been fine too. Great questions, by the way.
To be fair, blue aggro isn't an archetype that is very difficult to support. Afterall, aggro is supported in every other colour in the cube. The reason that I personally don't is that blue splashing aggro decks are already good, the only thing that cutting aggro support in blue does is makes blue very rarely the main colour in an aggro deck. To be honest, I don't want blue to be fought over even more, so this doesn't seem appealing. The example you used is interesting though, that draw-go is not a viable archetype. Draw-go is sometimes drafted here, and when it gets the nuts it is really quite good, and importantly there really is nothing stopping drafters drafting draw-go. However, there really isn't much difference between draw-go and more loosely defined control decks. Most heavy control decks will normally keep counter mana open, but generally outclass draw-go decks by being able to answer threats and gain card advantage more efficiently at sorcery speed, with cards like Foresee and Pestilence. This goes to such a point that adding draw-go support (like Inspiration) just leads to less optimal control decks that aren't draw-go at all.
Yes, size matters a lot. It may not seem to matter that much when you are making cuts from a larger list to a smaller list (eg Portent or Serum Visions) but the thing is, most of the cards you're adding after 360 (and even before then) are just bad cards. With more cards, you're getting closer to playing cards like Centaur Courser and Spined Wurm, which are not exciting by any means.
Having a smaller size does make the concentration of powerful cards much higher and thus makes drawing a very powerful cube card not uncommon at all. Yes, Bonesplitter is hard for some (normally suboptimal) decks to deal with, but if the other player hits back with Hymn to Tourach then the game is back on more balanced footing. Having a smaller cube obviously leads to a higher concentration of good cards in packs, which leads to having more powerful decks, if that wasn't clear. Drafting and playing powerful decks is really the point of cubing, too!
Artifact destruction is interesting in cube. I'd argue that it takes a lot of cards like Manic Vandal for one to not make the cut, as even the possibility of dealing with an artifact is decent on an already decent body. Not that that's efficient, but it will still normally impact the game. Dealing with artifacts in addition to providing a body is made significantly better with the fact that there are some very powerful artifacts for the cube in the cube - Vulshok Morningstar, Serrated Arrows, Bonesplitter, Leonin Scimitar, Opaline Bracers and Viridian Longbow are among some of the most powerful cards in the cube in any section, and cards like Adventuring Gear aren't far behind.
While these cards are usually great, the cards that are hard to balance are the Disenchant effects. Including too many will mean that they're just going to be dreg at the bottom of the pack, including too few will mean that equipment and other problem artifacts will just dominate games. A common mistake is to not include these cards in the main deck because they're limited answers, but the fact that they answer what nothing else answers and stop these cards from dominating games means that I'd include two, even three artifact destruction cards in a deck, depending on the other cards. Granted, I'd want these to be the creatures most of the time, as most artifacts in pauper don't require answering immediately.
I think that I've found a good balance in my cube with the non-creature artifact destruction being limited to Naturalize, Disenchant and Seal of Cleansing. Red has three creature answers and is tighter than either white or green, so I don't include any. Smash to Smithereens is close, but not necessary in 360 cards, IMO. Blue and Black answers are all terrible, and blue has countermagic anyway.
As I touched on before, pauper cubes have a much smaller core of good cards than most cubes. I personally like playing with as powerful packs as possible, and find the same cube not to get boring. Running a bigger cube is pretty much the same thing as putting cards on rotation, and a lot easier.
I've found that pauper cube is very skillful myself. Because there are few cards that are much better than the rest, a lot of the focus is maintaining a proper curve and on overall deck construction. There aren't many cards that are always high picks and signals become very important. I wouldn't call it straightforward at all. Games are usually interactive if both decks are similar in power level and can answer the punches, and working out ways to punch through a stalemate of creatures is necessary for a powerful deck. Yes, boring pauper games can and do happen, but I find this is normally due bad cube design (not enough answers, bad cards), or bad drafting.
I'll wait for more replies before I address some of the other points, but I did want to talk about the artifact destruction a bit.
I suppose that to understand my mindset, I should put one of my biases out there: I don't like sideboarding, because usually sideboarding means putting in or taking out very narrow cards. I can understand why someone might want to side out Doom Blade. I don't find it appealing, however, to side Ronom Unicorn in and out.
To me, siding in Ronom Unicorn goes against the idea of trying to create a solid 40 card deck that has synergy within itself. You had a card in there that worked better with the other 39 cards you had, but you have to replace that more optimal card with a narrow card that'll give you an out if you happen to draw it when they've got a Leonin Scimitar out.
So to me, the question is, 1) given the limited number of powerful equipment that require answers (probably less than 6 in my 500+ cube), and 2) given the relative boringness of Bonesplitter, Leonin Scimitar, and Vulshok Morningstar (to me, anyway, since you're rarely going to need to put deep thought into whether to draft or include it in your 40) -- is it worth it to just cut out or reduce the number of those types of artifacts, and swap out the more narrow cards (Ronom, Nantuko Vigilante) for cards that are more interesting outside of the narrow condition of an artifact being on the table?
Maybe the answer to my question is already apparent due to my personal biases. But I propose this question because of the difference between pauper and normal cubes (the different in the quality of artifacts {and maybe enchantments?} between pauper and normal cubes is astounding!) means we might have to think about artifact removal in a pauper cube differently than we do a normal cube.
Agree with almost everything Rubin8r says. Covers a lot of points I missed.
Okay, your post has a lot of points, but I think there is one main idea I would like to answer:
Narrow cards are not conductive to a good cube.
I do not necessarily disagree with this. I agree that narrow cards are not appealing. Personally, I've had some trouble with Ronom Unicorn, for example. I don't think it's cubeable, because pure enchantment removal is just that much worse than pure artifact removal (a la Manic Vandal). However, I think the distinction between us is what we constitute as a narrow card. I think that you may be exaggerating the 'badness' of narrow cards. I mean, I won't be sad if my opponent has 1 or 2 annoying enchantments, I'm playing GW and I side in a small weenie for Ronom Unicorn. Even if you don't get to crack anything with it, you're still getting a 2/2 for 2. Not the best thing, but still not bad.
This is the reason so many artifact and enchantment removal-on-a-stick's are cubed with. Because even at it's worse, you still get a critter. Even if for most of the time, they aren't as exciting as other creatures, the option of breaking even a Signet or Pacifism really makes it worthwhile.
That brings me to another point: sideboards. I think this is the crux; sideboards are what makes answers so good, by adding the flexibility of when you do and don't play answers. Sideboarding makes narrow cards stronger; obviously, if you can't get behind sideboarding, you can't get behind these seemingly 'narrow' cards.
Sideboarding is crucial to the game. Sideboarding is when you optimise your deck to defeat your opponent; it lets you take out the worst cards in your deck for that matchup in exchange for the answers you need for that matchup. I can't understand this dislike of sideboarding.
A lot of people don't even allow sideboarding at all in cube games. I like it in common cube because there really shouldn't be much you're changing (protection creatures are few and far between, and often good enough anyway) and its always satisfying to sideboard into a slightly different deck. Maybe that's because I play with players who are used to formats that sideboarding really matters (yeah, most formats :p), but not being able to make your deck a little more aggro against control or more controlling against faster aggro feels slightly like getting cheated. Cards like Doom Blade staying in are also rather infuriating. However, I rarely ever side in artifact destruction - it goes in the maindeck. Sometimes, it needs to be sided out because it's not targetting enough problem cards. However, it's still almost always decent game one, as most decks have at least four targets. Ronom Unicorn is a special case. Cards don't need to be that much better than a bear to make the cut, and in 360 cards there are quite a number of targets for it, from Narcolepsy and Oblivion Ring to Armadillo Cloak, and I would almost never side it or in - the cards better than it are clearly better and unless they play no enchantments at all then it is still better than quite a handful of cards. However, I can imagine that in larger cubes it's a lot worse.
I completely disagree that the equipment are boring. Not having equipment makes for much more boring games - when neither player can profiably attack, the game starts to get incredibly boring. Throw in an equipment on one side of the board and it gets a whole lot more interesting. They also add skill to drafting - while there are a few that are auto-picks and auto-includes (no different to power in powered cubes or even cards like Mulldrifter in pauper) there are some that go later and need to be compared to other cards. Picking Stormfront Pegasus over Order of the Golden Cricket takes little skill, but comparing Order to Strider Harness is harder and has to be done taking picks, the deck, the pick number and other drafters into account.
Also, while there are only maybe 6 "problem" equipment (even without answers they aren't large problems, IMO), all of the other equipment, while not needing to be answered, make the answers worth it. And with the answers, there's no reason not to run the equipment.
Before we continue with this, I'd like to apologise if we seem to be double-teaming you. You've raised some interesting points, and opened up some very interesting discussion. From what you've already said, it's obvious you've got some very unique views and you look at Pauper Cube as not just a collection of cards, but as one complex machine. I really like that.
This post really has no point, but I'd just like to let you know that there's nothing personal.
Now, onwards with the discussion. This is good stuff for my article.
While I also agree with Lanxal/Rubin8or's point of view (slightly distorted from the land of peasant), this is very interesting discussion. I wish I had something to add, but please continue.
(I suppose this post also has no point, but I want to continue birding this conversation :P)
I've got Moment's Peace for that. It's coool.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
It's great, and that's the main reason I want to try Cloud out. Being even close to as good as Moment's Peace is a hell of a lot better than lots of cards in the cube.
Draft it on Cubetutor!
Thoughts?
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Draft it on Cubetutor!
I used to write cube articles on StarCityGames, now for GatheringMagic and podcast about cube (w/Antknee42.)
Draft it on Cubetutor!
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Pauper Cube
I cube, I play EDH, and I can't afford Legacy. The other formats can suck it.
Not a fan of Radiant's Judgment (or Reprisal, for that matter.) Too restrictive. Light seems pretty good, worse than the options that many already run (Sunlance, Journey, Pacifism, Temporal Isolation) but it may be good enough for commons.
I've been considering Accorder's Shield lately, it's a card that I've gained a bit more respect for lately, but I don't know if it's good enough.
I used to write cube articles on StarCityGames, now for GatheringMagic and podcast about cube (w/Antknee42.)
Defribulator question: Is Lat-Nan's Legacy worth running? No real card advantage but will often provide virtual card advantage as one card may well be more or less blank. On the other hand it's only really an instant speed Ponder variant for 1U. (Strange other bonus VS discard, too)
Draft it on Cubetutor!
Which isn't a fair comparison, since I might be playing Portent anyway.
Although looking at it, when the Cube Evaluations 2CMC Noncreatures come around, I may reconsider. /shrugs
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
And I'm probably cutting See Beyond soon, so it doesn't even matter.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Draft it on Cubetutor!
These cards are not much at all like Ponder or Brainstorm and I don't really understand the comparison.
Pauper Cube
I cube, I play EDH, and I can't afford Legacy. The other formats can suck it.
Foul Spirit (pretty decent in decks like aggro which won't care as much if the land is dead)
Mightstone (Orcish Oriflamme but it helps both sides? Not a fan.)
Phantasmal Forces (seems pretty decent, but not a staple by any means. It having flying helps mitigate its 1 toughness by a LOT.)
Ogre Taskmaster (not bad, 4 power for 4 mana's hard to come by in red. No one's really running Order of the Sacred Bell in green, though.)
Obsianus Golem (pretty good body for the format, a butt of 6 is pretty huge. Though if it does come in, I doubt that it'd stay once Scars block is done.)
Brass Man (Steel Wall upgrade?)
Alluring Scent (Slightly cheaper than Shinen of Life's Roar for the effect, but the fact that it can't be a creature seems like it hurts more than the 1 mana benefit.)
Primal Clay (seems pretty decent, although none of its forms are particularly efficient.)
Oasis (no.)
Just Fate (I could be predictable and say "Just don't play this." ...oh.)
Ironhoof Ox (I think that the other 4G 4/4s are better.)
Goblin Firestarter (seems not too bad, although its sorcery-speed only use hurts it a lot. Probably not good enough, even though Fanatic's amazing.)
Glasses of Urza (also no.)
Flying Carpet (So overcosted.)
Ebony Horse (also a huge no.)
Warp Artifact (no)
Tawnos's Wand (no)
I used to write cube articles on StarCityGames, now for GatheringMagic and podcast about cube (w/Antknee42.)
Hi guys, just joined the forums, the only cards I have are the ones that I got for my pauper cube, which I based off Lanxal's cube initially. I've mostly only done Winstons with it, but I've been doing a lot of pruning and adding based on some of the discussions in this forum.
What I'm most interested in talking about are the different philosophies that a pauper cube can be built around, and whether those philosophies can be adequately supported in a pauper cube. For example, there has been a lot of discussion regarding blue aggro support in pauper cube. Can pauper cubes really support that archetype given the limited cards at their disposal, while not eviscerating archetypes like draw-go?
Another question worth thinking about: given the emphasis in pauper cube towards building "solid" decks, does the size of the cube (e.g. 360 v 720) cube matter more for pauper than for regular cubes? This question is provoked by one poster's difficulty in balancing cards of varying power levels (he says that having bonesplitter & leonin scimitar out allowed him to dominate games), which means that games are more luck-based.
Finally, thanks Lanxal for initiating all these projects that have really pushed the discussion on pauper cubing. I feel like it's almost as fun to follow the conversation as it is to play.
----------------
More food for thought -
How much artifact destruction should be put into the cube? My artifact section doesn't contain a whole lot of cards that need to be taken care of: Bonesplitter, Vulshok, Leonin Bola, and a couple of similar equipments are the main targets, creatures like Spire Golem or Steel Wall deserve artifact removal as well. There really are very few artifact creatures that demand removal, though, and beside equipment most of the artifacts I run are 1 time use items (a la executioner's capsule) or just mana fixing. Is it worth taking out overpowered equipment so that overall creature quality can be improved (by taking out cards like Gorilla Shaman, for example).
Given that pauper games are often more straight-forward than regular pauper games (I'm assuming), those of you who run smaller cubes, do you put cards on rotation so that you'll have variety, or do you just stick to a small set of tightly selected cards? When I read about people building 360 card cubes so that every card is used in every 8-man draft, I feel like playing the cube would get very repetitive after a few plays. Do you guys, based on your experience, feel this way? What is a good way to combat repetition?
Given that pauper cards are usually more straightforward than regular cube cards, what are some strategies you use to increase player decision-making? Do you focus on decision-making at the drafting stage? Or do you focus on decision-making during games? Do you prioritize cards like cyclers?
Artifact destruction is definitely a place that needs consideration. I think I need to add more desturction in my cube, for example. However, I don't understand this logic:
Cards like Gorilla Shaman are powerful because artifacts are powerful. You're not improving creature quality by this. What you're doing is removing good artifacts, which then lowers of the quality of the Shaman and ilk, which then you remove because they are no longer good enough. You're removing answers and an interesting level of interaction of the cube while not actually adding anything back.
I can't really answer the question on cube sizes, since I run a pretty large cube. However, I think this question is true for normal cube too, so you would get a better answer if you ask the general community.
That's a very important point you bring up: the power of decision making and interactions in pauper cube is one that must be kept in mind because the environment is inherently 'simple', without complexity from uncommons and rares. The most important thing to Pauper, I think, is synergy and interactions of cards; that is where most of Pauper cube's 'fun' and power comes from. Not the individual cards, but the way they interact that brings the cube to the next level.
The way people do this is varied. I may even explore it in an article (seriously, too many article ideas and not enough actual writing). I think the simplest and the most important method, though, is answers. For example, you talked about artifacts a few paragraphs ago. This is actually a perfect example, since it shows how you can kill two stones with one bird. By adding artifact removal, such as Gorilla Shaman and Smash to Smithereens, you both quell the artifact problem, add a very interesting layer of interaction that forces more player decision during the drafting, deckbuilding, actually playing and sideboarding, as well as add to the overall power level of the cube (power begets power).
I'll save any more rambling I have for when I actually do my article.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
To be fair, blue aggro isn't an archetype that is very difficult to support. Afterall, aggro is supported in every other colour in the cube. The reason that I personally don't is that blue splashing aggro decks are already good, the only thing that cutting aggro support in blue does is makes blue very rarely the main colour in an aggro deck. To be honest, I don't want blue to be fought over even more, so this doesn't seem appealing. The example you used is interesting though, that draw-go is not a viable archetype. Draw-go is sometimes drafted here, and when it gets the nuts it is really quite good, and importantly there really is nothing stopping drafters drafting draw-go. However, there really isn't much difference between draw-go and more loosely defined control decks. Most heavy control decks will normally keep counter mana open, but generally outclass draw-go decks by being able to answer threats and gain card advantage more efficiently at sorcery speed, with cards like Foresee and Pestilence. This goes to such a point that adding draw-go support (like Inspiration) just leads to less optimal control decks that aren't draw-go at all.
Yes, size matters a lot. It may not seem to matter that much when you are making cuts from a larger list to a smaller list (eg Portent or Serum Visions) but the thing is, most of the cards you're adding after 360 (and even before then) are just bad cards. With more cards, you're getting closer to playing cards like Centaur Courser and Spined Wurm, which are not exciting by any means.
Having a smaller size does make the concentration of powerful cards much higher and thus makes drawing a very powerful cube card not uncommon at all. Yes, Bonesplitter is hard for some (normally suboptimal) decks to deal with, but if the other player hits back with Hymn to Tourach then the game is back on more balanced footing. Having a smaller cube obviously leads to a higher concentration of good cards in packs, which leads to having more powerful decks, if that wasn't clear. Drafting and playing powerful decks is really the point of cubing, too!
Artifact destruction is interesting in cube. I'd argue that it takes a lot of cards like Manic Vandal for one to not make the cut, as even the possibility of dealing with an artifact is decent on an already decent body. Not that that's efficient, but it will still normally impact the game. Dealing with artifacts in addition to providing a body is made significantly better with the fact that there are some very powerful artifacts for the cube in the cube - Vulshok Morningstar, Serrated Arrows, Bonesplitter, Leonin Scimitar, Opaline Bracers and Viridian Longbow are among some of the most powerful cards in the cube in any section, and cards like Adventuring Gear aren't far behind.
Because of all that, I consider Wickerbough Elder, Kor Sanctifiers, Gorilla Shaman (most problem artifacts happen to cost 1), Manic Vandal, Keldon Vandals, Mold Shambler and Nantuko Vigilante to be cube staples, with the possible exception of Mox Monkey (Shaman).
While these cards are usually great, the cards that are hard to balance are the Disenchant effects. Including too many will mean that they're just going to be dreg at the bottom of the pack, including too few will mean that equipment and other problem artifacts will just dominate games. A common mistake is to not include these cards in the main deck because they're limited answers, but the fact that they answer what nothing else answers and stop these cards from dominating games means that I'd include two, even three artifact destruction cards in a deck, depending on the other cards. Granted, I'd want these to be the creatures most of the time, as most artifacts in pauper don't require answering immediately.
I think that I've found a good balance in my cube with the non-creature artifact destruction being limited to Naturalize, Disenchant and Seal of Cleansing. Red has three creature answers and is tighter than either white or green, so I don't include any. Smash to Smithereens is close, but not necessary in 360 cards, IMO. Blue and Black answers are all terrible, and blue has countermagic anyway.
As I touched on before, pauper cubes have a much smaller core of good cards than most cubes. I personally like playing with as powerful packs as possible, and find the same cube not to get boring. Running a bigger cube is pretty much the same thing as putting cards on rotation, and a lot easier.
I've found that pauper cube is very skillful myself. Because there are few cards that are much better than the rest, a lot of the focus is maintaining a proper curve and on overall deck construction. There aren't many cards that are always high picks and signals become very important. I wouldn't call it straightforward at all. Games are usually interactive if both decks are similar in power level and can answer the punches, and working out ways to punch through a stalemate of creatures is necessary for a powerful deck. Yes, boring pauper games can and do happen, but I find this is normally due bad cube design (not enough answers, bad cards), or bad drafting.
Draft it on Cubetutor!
I'll wait for more replies before I address some of the other points, but I did want to talk about the artifact destruction a bit.
I suppose that to understand my mindset, I should put one of my biases out there: I don't like sideboarding, because usually sideboarding means putting in or taking out very narrow cards. I can understand why someone might want to side out Doom Blade. I don't find it appealing, however, to side Ronom Unicorn in and out.
To me, siding in Ronom Unicorn goes against the idea of trying to create a solid 40 card deck that has synergy within itself. You had a card in there that worked better with the other 39 cards you had, but you have to replace that more optimal card with a narrow card that'll give you an out if you happen to draw it when they've got a Leonin Scimitar out.
So to me, the question is, 1) given the limited number of powerful equipment that require answers (probably less than 6 in my 500+ cube), and 2) given the relative boringness of Bonesplitter, Leonin Scimitar, and Vulshok Morningstar (to me, anyway, since you're rarely going to need to put deep thought into whether to draft or include it in your 40) -- is it worth it to just cut out or reduce the number of those types of artifacts, and swap out the more narrow cards (Ronom, Nantuko Vigilante) for cards that are more interesting outside of the narrow condition of an artifact being on the table?
Maybe the answer to my question is already apparent due to my personal biases. But I propose this question because of the difference between pauper and normal cubes (the different in the quality of artifacts {and maybe enchantments?} between pauper and normal cubes is astounding!) means we might have to think about artifact removal in a pauper cube differently than we do a normal cube.
Okay, your post has a lot of points, but I think there is one main idea I would like to answer:
Narrow cards are not conductive to a good cube.
I do not necessarily disagree with this. I agree that narrow cards are not appealing. Personally, I've had some trouble with Ronom Unicorn, for example. I don't think it's cubeable, because pure enchantment removal is just that much worse than pure artifact removal (a la Manic Vandal). However, I think the distinction between us is what we constitute as a narrow card. I think that you may be exaggerating the 'badness' of narrow cards. I mean, I won't be sad if my opponent has 1 or 2 annoying enchantments, I'm playing GW and I side in a small weenie for Ronom Unicorn. Even if you don't get to crack anything with it, you're still getting a 2/2 for 2. Not the best thing, but still not bad.
This is the reason so many artifact and enchantment removal-on-a-stick's are cubed with. Because even at it's worse, you still get a critter. Even if for most of the time, they aren't as exciting as other creatures, the option of breaking even a Signet or Pacifism really makes it worthwhile.
That brings me to another point: sideboards. I think this is the crux; sideboards are what makes answers so good, by adding the flexibility of when you do and don't play answers. Sideboarding makes narrow cards stronger; obviously, if you can't get behind sideboarding, you can't get behind these seemingly 'narrow' cards.
Sideboarding is crucial to the game. Sideboarding is when you optimise your deck to defeat your opponent; it lets you take out the worst cards in your deck for that matchup in exchange for the answers you need for that matchup. I can't understand this dislike of sideboarding.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Ronom Unicorn is a special case. Cards don't need to be that much better than a bear to make the cut, and in 360 cards there are quite a number of targets for it, from Narcolepsy and Oblivion Ring to Armadillo Cloak, and I would almost never side it or in - the cards better than it are clearly better and unless they play no enchantments at all then it is still better than quite a handful of cards. However, I can imagine that in larger cubes it's a lot worse.
I completely disagree that the equipment are boring. Not having equipment makes for much more boring games - when neither player can profiably attack, the game starts to get incredibly boring. Throw in an equipment on one side of the board and it gets a whole lot more interesting. They also add skill to drafting - while there are a few that are auto-picks and auto-includes (no different to power in powered cubes or even cards like Mulldrifter in pauper) there are some that go later and need to be compared to other cards. Picking Stormfront Pegasus over Order of the Golden Cricket takes little skill, but comparing Order to Strider Harness is harder and has to be done taking picks, the deck, the pick number and other drafters into account.
Also, while there are only maybe 6 "problem" equipment (even without answers they aren't large problems, IMO), all of the other equipment, while not needing to be answered, make the answers worth it. And with the answers, there's no reason not to run the equipment.
Draft it on Cubetutor!
This post really has no point, but I'd just like to let you know that there's nothing personal.
Now, onwards with the discussion. This is good stuff for my article.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
(I suppose this post also has no point, but I want to continue birding this conversation :P)