Thanks guys :). I went with Stonecloaker and Dreams of Steel and Oil, I wanted control leaning cards as aggro decks can just race the graveyard decks but I didn't want control overwhelmed by their power.
I'm doing a big list update and this made me totally reevaluate my lands section. I'm currently going from ~26 fixing lands to 45 and I would like to go higher but I don't think there's any good lands to play without breaking rarity at this point.
10 Triomes
10 Landscapes
10 Reveal Lands (yes 5 of these were literally never peasant but come on)
5 Vivid Lands
5 Thriving Lands
5 Random 5C fixing lands:
I could probably add a handfull of other random cards like Mirrodin's Core, but are there any good cycles past this point? I wouldn't mind another 10 cards if they existed but I think at this point I'm probably looking at one of the ETB tapped Pauper dual land cycles and those suuuuuck compared to the other stuff.
Any thoughts?
PS. The article also got me thinking about the value of dedicated sideboard cards. To this end I just added:
Speak up if anyone has other sideboard cards they recommend, or what their experiences are with playing those cards. My theory is that I'd rather cube some sideboard cards that are situationally good, vs mediocre cards in the last 5 slots of each colour that seldom get played.
FWIW, I read the article you linked (and listened to the podcast episode they did on the same topic) a while ago, and increased my land count. I'm still only at roughly 8% (as opposed to up to 17% like they recommend), but I've been pretty happy where I'm at. If you end up with a higher percentage, I'd like to know how that plays out. I'd imagine it would free you up to consider more double-pipped cards with MV < 4. Also, all these extra landfall triggers has got to make some previously uncubeable cards worth looking at again.
I'm a huge proponent of being able to cast your spells on time (hence why I have broken rarity for fixing), and even I think 2.5 lands per pack sounds pretty extreme. At that point I feel like that takes a lot of tension out of the draft phase, and that is not something I want to do. Plus, as you noted, fixing options drop off sharply once you get outside the best stuff that everyone runs - is it really worth it to include more fixing if it's refuges and the like? I've been very happy with 42 fixing lands (+4 five-color rocks) in my 450 cube; I have never heard any complaints about decks being bad due to lack of available fixing.
If you do intend to push your fixing higher, I have found pathways (Branchloft Pathway) and painlands (Brushland) to be pretty in-line with what I want the power level of my format to be. I was using checklands (Sunpetal Grove) for a while, but once all 10 triomes were printed I found that having the correct basic types in play was a bit too easy. Other rare lands worth checking out are Tendo Ice Bridge (Aether Hub without the baggage) and Fabled Passage. I tried Prismatic Vista for a while, but also found it just a bit too good. Oh - and don't forget actual uncommon Gemstone Mine!
I second the painlands inclusion, if you are already using reveal lands, almost the same rule applies to them, 5 of them were printed with uncommon symbol in Ice Age.
For the record, my current view is that for a land to make the list, it needs to either needs to be 3+ colours, have a way to ETB untapped, or provide some other significant utility (eg the MH3 MDFC's like Stump Stomp). I'm also not currently interested in breaking rarity.
The SNC fetches are so much worse than the new MH3 Landscapes, and are much harder to read quickly without the handy cycling pips that he new cards have. I will not be playing these.
I agree going land heavy is a bit unorthodox. Given that it's easier to cut lands than coloured cards, and the fact that I'm metaphorically leveling the building to start over from scratch, I think now's a great time to try some more fringe ideas.
I'm a huge proponent of being able to cast your spells on time (hence why I have broken rarity for fixing), and even I think 2.5 lands per pack sounds pretty extreme. At that point I feel like that takes a lot of tension out of the draft phase, and that is not something I want to do. Plus, as you noted, fixing options drop off sharply once you get outside the best stuff that everyone runs - is it really worth it to include more fixing if it's refuges and the like? I've been very happy with 42 fixing lands (+4 five-color rocks) in my 450 cube; I have never heard any complaints about decks being bad due to lack of available fixing.
If you do intend to push your fixing higher, I have found pathways (Branchloft Pathway) and painlands (Brushland) to be pretty in-line with what I want the power level of my format to be. I was using checklands (Sunpetal Grove) for a while, but once all 10 triomes were printed I found that having the correct basic types in play was a bit too easy. Other rare lands worth checking out are Tendo Ice Bridge (Aether Hub without the baggage) and Fabled Passage. I tried Prismatic Vista for a while, but also found it just a bit too good. Oh - and don't forget actual uncommon Gemstone Mine!
The painlands are probably the first place I'd go if I were looking to break rarity. I've currently got Gemstone Mine out of my list because of its limited shelf life, but it is a fair option.
I second the painlands inclusion, if you are already using reveal lands, almost the same rule applies to them, 5 of them were printed with uncommon symbol in Ice Age.
I'm going to need a source for this. Scryfall doesn't corroborate but I would love to add them.
How is there no B/W hybrid cards that support B/W tokens aristocrats? It is so common in full multi-colour but never for hybrid?
Afterlife Insurance seems like a pretty good fit. It's hybrid, it wants creatures to die, and it creates tokens.
Even Cauldron Haze could fit the bill if you gave persist to stuff like Cloudgoat Ranger. Granted, that needs specific support, but it could fit. Why sac something once when you can sac it twice?
This article has also been a huge influence for me. One of the biggest takeaways for me is the conclusion they make at the end of the article that as "players only maindeck around half of the non-land cards drafted in a typical pod, non-basic lands should be weighed against sideboard cards, narrower build-arounds, cards with restrictive casting costs, and otherwise conditional cards. If your sideboards often include on-color cards that are just less appealing than other options in your pool rather than belonging to one of these categories you have some untapped design space to explore".
People having around 30 maindeckable cards that the end of a draft is definitely something I have noticed a lot with my own and other peasant-adjacent cubes and it seems prudent to try to address it by increasing the land count. Even if you don't address this by adding more multi-colour lands, I think adding more single colour utility lands can also help accomplish the same thing.
One thing I have done a bit of but want to think more about is having more narrow build arounds or small packages of cards that can define an archetype all on their own. Things like Favorable Winds or Gray Merchant of Asphodel can be added to any peasant cube and provide a whole deck you can build around without needing much other support.
I've been very happy with 42 fixing lands (+4 five-color rocks) in my 450 cube; I have never heard any complaints about decks being bad due to lack of available fixing.
For me it's less about a potential lack of fixing and more about using all of the spots in a cube efficiently (and about having less to hem and haw about during deck construction).
Oh, I absolutely agree that cards that are just mediocre versions of other things already in the cube should be re-examined. Replacing them with ones which are niche build-arounds but powerful in the right shell is an interesting idea, I just don't agree with the main conclusion that 17% is the right proportion of lands for a cube, especially in this format.
The types of manabases that fetches + duals + shocks + triomes enable are vastly different from what we see in peasant. Fetches are basically 5-color lands, and even an off-color fetch can still find both your main colors, so picking up even one fetch or fetchable during the draft makes you much more likely to pick more down the road (and then actually play them). Furthermore, the cost of running fixing is relatively low since the lands are mostly coming in untapped, so its not surprising to see more fixing lands being played in general, as small splashes have a good chance of being close to free.
Compare that to what we have at uncommon and below: if you want to approach the same breadth of appeal during drafting, you would use: 10 trilands, 10 landscapes, 10 gates/thriving, 5 vivids, Terramorphic Expanse, Evolving Wilds, Escape Tunnel, Ash Barrens, Cryptic Spires, Aether Hub, City of Brass, and Gemstone Mine. But: 1) these lands are far less flexible at which colors they enable; and 2) none of these lands interact with each other, so you aren't incentivized to pick more of them as you go.
And then you still have to add 18 more 2-color ETB tapped lands (i.e. Wind-Scarred Crag and friends) to make it to the recommended 61 lands for a 360 cube, and I think most of us agree that is not where we want to be. Coming into play tapped is a real cost, and I think that a not-insignificant portion of decks will actually be less incentivized to play more fixing the more they get, in order to reduce the number of times a tapped land makes them stumble.
This sort of feeds into my next point, which is that the article says 4-5 color midrange piles are mitigated by giving aggro more support, but at this point we have cut off the foundation for 2-color aggro decks by only giving them fixing which comes into play tapped.
Which is to say - I'm not fully convinced that, in this format specifically, adding more fixing actually produces the results found in the article. Of course, I'm willing to be proven wrong if results bear it out... but not willing enough to test it myself when I feel my mana is in a good place (and when I'm using too much of my brain power as it is to figure out cuts for MH3 ;)).
Finally, I don't have a reason other than "vibes" for this, but 2.54 lands per pack just feels like way too many to me, especially in a format where most of us try to keep our gold sections in check. For reference, the MTGO vintage cube directly supports a 5-color strat, has a gold section that takes up 11.7% of the cube, and still "only" has 2.17 fixing lands per pack.
To save everyone 10 minutes of their time reading the article, I've summarised their main points below:
Retail draft environments have atrocious fixing land ratios between 0% - 8% (as a proportion of your 40 card deck).
In their sample of constructed 60 card decks, the ratio ranged between 35% (historic 3+ colour decks) to 11% (pauper constructed 2 colour decks).
The stark difference between the two situations was discussed, and essentially used to argue that retail sets are not a good baseline for fixing land concentrations if you want your players to have functional manabases.
The article used a sample of 75k decks drafted on CubeCobra to conclude that players typically maindeck 2/3 of their fixing lands. This was fairly consistent irrespective of the proportion of fixing lands in the cube.
The article then pivots to using Frank Karsten's math to determine how many fixing lands a 40 card limited deck would need to contain in order to consistently play different sequences of cards (eg a sequence of Turn 3 1BB, Turn 4 2RR would require 6 fixing lands in a 17 land deck).
These fixing land proportional requirements are then translated to an equivalent range of lands required in a 360 card cube, assuming different proportions of picked fixing lands are maindecked (eg, for the 6 fixing land deck above, if 2/3 of lands were maindecked, the cube would need to contain 72 fixing lands)
The article then attempts to define an upper bound whereby the number of lands has an actively negative impact on the drafters ability to end up with a viable deck. They conclude that "96-120 lands is the most you can include at 360 before players start ending up short on playable, non-land cards."
They also claim that 1/3 of the cards players typically draft are on-colour cards that don't make the cut (I don't see where they pull this number from). They suggest that one way to get more value out of these dead picks is to instead replace the weakest cards with niche but useful alternatives like side board cards, niche buildarounds, and fixing lands (See campervanbeethoven's quote above).
They also address concerns saying that too many fixing lands will lead to the dominance of 5C piles, and discuss ways to address it if it does happen (they downplay the risk).
With that out of the way:
Quote from cVantez »
The types of manabases that fetches + duals + shocks + triomes enable are vastly different from what we see in peasant.
True, but this isn't about the power level of the fixing, only that the fixing exists and be available the turn it is required. Besides fetches and triomes, I don't think there are many cards in vintage cubes which give you access to more than 2 colours.
Quote from cVantez »
This sort of feeds into my next point, which is that the article says 4-5 color midrange piles are mitigated by giving aggro more support, but at this point we have cut off the foundation for 2-color aggro decks by only giving them fixing which comes into play tapped.
As opposed to giving them no fixing? If the aggro players want that, they can still just play an all basics mana base.
Quote from cVantez »
Finally, I don't have a reason other than "vibes" for this, but 2.54 lands per pack just feels like way too many to me, especially in a format where most of us try to keep our gold sections in check.
For what it's worth, the only 2-colour (that is to say - guild restricted) lands I'm playing is the reveal lands cycle (10/55 lands). So the comparison between fixing lands and the gold section isn't necessarily a strong one in my opinion.
I think the biggest "gotcha" that makes this article less applicable to peasant is that key bit I mentioned above about assuming the lands are available the turn you need them. Obviously we're playing a lot of etb tapped lands, and that's why I'm so keen to avoid them unless there's no alternative.
The part of the article I find most interesting (and I was reading in the hopes that it would be addressed) is the “most demanding spell” section. Obviously heavy multicolor sets (Ravnica, etc.) require more fixing than sets without that component, but in my opinion, the demands of multiple colored pips on mono-color cards is even more important. Trying to cast a UUCounterspell within a turn of a WWAnafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit is going to require a lot more fixing than a 1UMana Leak and 1WCathar Commando, but the WU requirements in Soulherder is actually easier to fulfill because you only need one of each.
Looking at my cube for more demanding mana costs (2-3 specific color pips), I find the following:
2 cmc - 6 monocolor, 15 multicolor
3 cmc - 8 monocolor, 21 multicolor
4 cmc - 9 monocolor, 10 multicolor
5 cmc - 5 monocolor, 1 multicolor
6 cmc - 4 monocolor, 1 multicolor
7 cmc - 3 monocolor, 1 multicolor
(I didn't count hybrid as demanding, but I did include cards with alternate costs/abilities that may never get cast for their actual mana cost)
And the higher the mana value goes, the less concerned I am about maximizing fixing to cast the card. Pelakka Wurm has GGG, but by the time I hit 7 mana, that's not a huge demand in a 2-color deck. It's really the 2-3 or 2-4 slots that should drive fixing density if you want to cast things on curve (or near curve, given the lands often enter tapped).
I'd be curious to see an analysis of those slots. What total or percent are people running of demanding 2-4 drops? What information would we even collect/compare? For example, I have 69 demanding mana values in the 2-4 slots of a 405 card cube, but 2/3 of those are multicolor (I run more guild slots than average). I have 23 demanding monocolor cards in those slots. So, I guess 5.7% of my cube? Is this higher or lower than average?
True, but this isn't about the power level of the fixing, only that the fixing exists and be available the turn it is required. Besides fetches and triomes, I don't think there are many cards in vintage cubes which give you access to more than 2 colours.
To a certain extent, I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that the interaction between fetch and fetchable is likely a main contributor to the observed pattern that more fixing being available leads to players playing a higher percentage of the fixing they take. The existence of fetchlands is the only thing that makes surveil lands playable, for example.
Quote from n00b1n8R »
As opposed to giving them no fixing?
This is my main argument for including rare fixing =p
Quote from n00b1n8R »
For what it's worth, the only 2-colour (that is to say - guild restricted) lands I'm playing is the reveal lands cycle (10/55 lands). So the comparison between fixing lands and the gold section isn't necessarily a strong one in my opinion.
This is fair. It was more of a way for me to go... "Hey, here is a format where they actively want people to be casting 5-color spells, and they still don't hit that 17% mark. Is the cube built poorly, or is 17% actually too much?"
Quote from n00b1n8R »
Obviously we're playing a lot of etb tapped lands, and that's why I'm so keen to avoid them unless there's no alternative.
I think this is everything I was trying to say summed up in one sentence xD. I don't think we should be adding bad lands to our cubes just to hit some threshold that was calculated under different assumptions
True, but this isn't about the power level of the fixing, only that the fixing exists and be available the turn it is required. Besides fetches and triomes, I don't think there are many cards in vintage cubes which give you access to more than 2 colours.
To a certain extent, I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that the interaction between fetch and fetchable is likely a main contributor to the observed pattern that more fixing being available leads to players playing a higher percentage of the fixing they take. The existence of fetchlands is the only thing that makes surveil lands playable, for example.
Oh that's a really good point. It'd be interesting to cut their 75K sample down to just the peasant lists and see how it bears out.
Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that decks need a certain percentage of fixing lands to function reliably.
For what it's worth, the only 2-colour (that is to say - guild restricted) lands I'm playing is the reveal lands cycle (10/55 lands). So the comparison between fixing lands and the gold section isn't necessarily a strong one in my opinion.
This is fair. It was more of a way for me to go... "Hey, here is a format where they actively want people to be casting 5-color spells, and they still don't hit that 17% mark. Is the cube built poorly, or is 17% actually too much?"
I think a lot of cubes out there really are just built poorly. Including mine!
Obviously we're playing a lot of etb tapped lands, and that's why I'm so keen to avoid them unless there's no alternative.
I think this is everything I was trying to say summed up in one sentence xD. I don't think we should be adding bad lands to our cubes just to hit some threshold that was calculated under different assumptions
Sure, but the "badness" of a card is context specific. Atog is legal in almost every constructed format, but only Pauper had a need to ban it (RIP). That said, I have my limits and currently they're set somewhere above "etb tapped dual lands". I get why people break rarity for lands, and I used to have shocklands in my list, but I just don't want to right now.
What is your opinion and rational on an "ideal" peasant fixing lands package using the cards currently available?
I'm officially over the hump in cube development (for my cube overhaul) where you have to start cutting cards back to a streamlined list. This is the worst part of the process!
I'm almost there as well, problem is this is the third time in a year I've started...
If I'm not careful my initial pass always ends up looking like 40% of the cube is blink, 40% sacrifice and 20% aggro.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I wish all archetypes could be equally hated. Or loved, but the former better reflects the mindset of the vocal portion of the player base. My 540ish Peasant Cube on Cubetutor
What are the best graveyard hate cards? I am getting a little concerned that there really isn't any answer to my cube's graveyard shenanigans
I have never thought the graveyard decks need specific answers beyond those normally provided in Cube.
A lot of the reanimation spells are enchantments, so the enchantment removal spells do extra work here. There is no single reanimation target that provides a massive card advantage on ETB. There are no popular reanimation spells which grant haste. There are some large, hard-to-interact with creatures (ward/hexproof), but they are mostly blockable.
There are also graveyard value decks based on having a full yard, and most of those decks operate on a fair axis too. I think the most powerful spells are the ones making multiple token creatures, but those also require setup.
This all brings me around to the consensus that incidental graveyard hate is useful, but dedicated graveyard hate would be too much.
I find this Lucky Paper article really interesting based on how it addresses the question “What to do about those cards in cube people don’t play?” Cubes inevitably have cards that usually miss decks and there must be a better thing to do with those slots. Their conclusions focused around land cycles, archetype support, and power level. I was greatly influenced by the idea of adding more fixing and my Cube is now settled at 13.3% fixing lands (68/512), which is roughly 2 per 15-card pack/6 per drafter. There are three main conclusions I came to.
1 ) Fixing is archetype support. This is not to see that multi-color is an archetype, but that the likelihood of fixing being good for a drafter is as likely as, say, Envoy of the Ancestors or Bogardan Dragonheart.
2) Card choice dictates archetype power. I fought against the 4c value piles by cutting low-end value cards like Kasmina, Enigmatic Mentor or Arborback Stomper. Plus just now cutting Signets for the MDFC duals.
3) Lands that enter tapped limits the amount of viable fixing. Even in retail limited, the amount of tapped lands a deck can reasonably play sits around 4-5. Offering 6 per drafter with two-thirds of those fitting the deck is right where I want to be.
What is your opinion and rational on an "ideal" peasant fixing lands package using the cards currently available?
Probably about where I am currently: painlands, pathways, triomes, thrivings, then a handful of 5-color fixing, most of which comes into play untapped.
The way I think about peasant cube is that its a place for all the retail limited all-stars that aren't quite good enough for constructed formats to continue to shine (though I'm not sure how much that has remained the case over the past few years / masters sets / horizons sets), so the overall feel should be "strong limited." I want there to be better quality of fixing than is generally available in packs, but not constructed-level good. I think if you were playing Alara/Khans trilands instead of triomes, then fetchlands would be a perfectly acceptable power level, but I'd prefer to have the cycling utility.
There is a bit of tension around wanting fixing to be relevant to more than one player in a pod, but untapped duals are much better at supporting small splashes than tapped duals are, so I think that adds a bit more appeal to drafters who aren't strictly on both of those colors.
Though I am feeling like a major redesign might be in my future, so maybe I will find a place for the landscapes. I've been trying to re-focus individual archetypes recently, but I feel kind of painted into a corner with +1/+1 counters - it's the best thing GW does at this rarity, but too many of those cards want to only exist in one deck. Trying to hit a critical mass of cards to make that deck viable feels like I'm taking things away from other decks and I don't really relish that. MH3 having a focus on modified has made me start thinking about RW equipments and GB counters, but then those changes roll over into tokens and graveyard stuff suddenly becoming more narrow...
Plus I've been having some problems with tokens anyway: RB is trying to be about sacrificing things, but: 1) its actually the best control color pair at this rarity and 2) all the best token makers are white. I've been running into the same problems Leelue has where spirits/birds are obviously the best thing to do in the cube (seriously, Ministrant of Obligation and Battle Screech are probably actually too good), and I feel the lengths I'm going to to contain them are much worse than just scaling back / trying to find something different to do (nobody should have to cube Echoing Truth).
...Yeah, I'm probably going to take the summer to burn it all down and rebuild from the ground up
If anyone has any thoughts I'm happy to hear them! I've also come to the realization that I need to leave Bloodbraid Elf out and include Writhing Chrysalis instead, so emotional support is also greatly appreciated.
What is your opinion and rational on an "ideal" peasant fixing lands package using the cards currently available?
Probably about where I am currently: painlands, pathways, triomes, thrivings, then a handful of 5-color fixing, most of which comes into play untapped.
The way I think about peasant cube is that its a place for all the retail limited all-stars that aren't quite good enough for constructed formats to continue to shine (though I'm not sure how much that has remained the case over the past few years / masters sets / horizons sets), so the overall feel should be "strong limited." I want there to be better quality of fixing than is generally available in packs, but not constructed-level good. I think if you were playing Alara/Khans trilands instead of triomes, then fetchlands would be a perfectly acceptable power level, but I'd prefer to have the cycling utility.
There is a bit of tension around wanting fixing to be relevant to more than one player in a pod, but untapped duals are much better at supporting small splashes than tapped duals are, so I think that adds a bit more appeal to drafters who aren't strictly on both of those colors.
That's fair enough but like BrownDog said - get out buddy you're in the wrong thread haha
Though I am feeling like a major redesign might be in my future, so maybe I will find a place for the landscapes. I've been trying to re-focus individual archetypes recently, but I feel kind of painted into a corner with +1/+1 counters - it's the best thing GW does at this rarity, but too many of those cards want to only exist in one deck. Trying to hit a critical mass of cards to make that deck viable feels like I'm taking things away from other decks and I don't really relish that. MH3 having a focus on modified has made me start thinking about RW equipments and GB counters, but then those changes roll over into tokens and graveyard stuff suddenly becoming more narrow...
I've been pleasantly surprised by the quality of archetype cards for +1/+1 and equipment decks. Mechanics like For Mirroden, Living Weapon, Modified, equipment that etb attached to a token give the equip deck a big boost
. The options are much much better today than they were only a few years ago. I've been particularly impressed by the quality of cards I've found that both support a +1/+1 counters deck, but also support other archetypes as well. Here's a list of cards I'm currently seriously considering for the archetype:
Plus I've been having some problems with tokens anyway: RB is trying to be about sacrificing things, but: 1) its actually the best control color pair at this rarity and 2) all the best token makers are white. I've been running into the same problems Leelue has where spirits/birds are obviously the best thing to do in the cube (seriously, Ministrant of Obligation and Battle Screech are probably actually too good), and I feel the lengths I'm going to to contain them are much worse than just scaling back / trying to find something different to do (nobody should have to cube Echoing Truth).
Yeah at a certain point I expect you just have to come up with alternative ways to create sacrifice fodder (cards that cost mana to reuse like Reassembling Skeleton, cards with effects like Afterlife for example), to give you cards with multiple bodies, but spread those multiple bodies over time, rather than creating them all at once.
I've also come to the realization that I need to leave Bloodbraid Elf out and include Writhing Chrysalis instead, so emotional support is also greatly appreciated.
I know this feel.
71 more cards to cut. Maybe I just bump the cube up from 405 to 450 and call it a day..
I've also been on a redesign journey this past few weeks. Basically I remade my cube from the ground up and really focused on the fixing because I noticed that the land fixing had been a major area that I felt needed fixing. Two recent sets really inspired this change: OTJ limited really opened my eyes to how powerful a ping is from a Desert Fixer and LCI opened my eyes to how much fun Spelunking is which made me re-add bouncelands which when paired together is actually really fun even in aggro.
That said my cube is currently at 445 and my goal is to get it to 400 so that it feels better given we normally draft right now with 6 people because that extra 50 cards really does make it feel sometimes that a whole section of the cube isn't present vs what 400 should feel like.
..You know, I was about to repeat the thing I've been telling myself for the past X years which is "I can't include Unicorn / Renata / Anafenza because I absolutely do not want anyone going infinite in my format..."
But really, if I'm out here killing sacred cows already, it seems much better to just junk Kitchen Finks and Murderous Redcap instead. There certainly isn't a lack of playable green 3s or black 4s anymore.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
What a great article!
I'm doing a big list update and this made me totally reevaluate my lands section. I'm currently going from ~26 fixing lands to 45 and I would like to go higher but I don't think there's any good lands to play without breaking rarity at this point.
10 Triomes
10 Landscapes
10 Reveal Lands (yes 5 of these were literally never peasant but come on)
5 Vivid Lands
5 Thriving Lands
5 Random 5C fixing lands:
I could probably add a handfull of other random cards like Mirrodin's Core, but are there any good cycles past this point? I wouldn't mind another 10 cards if they existed but I think at this point I'm probably looking at one of the ETB tapped Pauper dual land cycles and those suuuuuck compared to the other stuff.
Any thoughts?
PS. The article also got me thinking about the value of dedicated sideboard cards. To this end I just added:
Speak up if anyone has other sideboard cards they recommend, or what their experiences are with playing those cards. My theory is that I'd rather cube some sideboard cards that are situationally good, vs mediocre cards in the last 5 slots of each colour that seldom get played.
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
If you don't mind cards that are almost functionally identical ones you've included above, you could add:
There's also the group of "choose a color" ETB tapped lands like: Uncharted Haven and Shimmerdrift Vale.
FWIW, I read the article you linked (and listened to the podcast episode they did on the same topic) a while ago, and increased my land count. I'm still only at roughly 8% (as opposed to up to 17% like they recommend), but I've been pretty happy where I'm at. If you end up with a higher percentage, I'd like to know how that plays out. I'd imagine it would free you up to consider more double-pipped cards with MV < 4. Also, all these extra landfall triggers has got to make some previously uncubeable cards worth looking at again.
If you do intend to push your fixing higher, I have found pathways (Branchloft Pathway) and painlands (Brushland) to be pretty in-line with what I want the power level of my format to be. I was using checklands (Sunpetal Grove) for a while, but once all 10 triomes were printed I found that having the correct basic types in play was a bit too easy. Other rare lands worth checking out are Tendo Ice Bridge (Aether Hub without the baggage) and Fabled Passage. I tried Prismatic Vista for a while, but also found it just a bit too good. Oh - and don't forget actual uncommon Gemstone Mine!
Thank you! I didn't know about these and since they're functionally identical to the Vivid lands I'm already playing, these are going right in.
Added to the maybeboard, thanks.
Evolving Wilds/Terramophic Expanse are classics but look pretty sad in comparison to Escape Tunnel. I'm a lot less interested in them than I used to be.
The SNC fetches are so much worse than the new MH3 Landscapes, and are much harder to read quickly without the handy cycling pips that he new cards have. I will not be playing these.
I agree going land heavy is a bit unorthodox. Given that it's easier to cut lands than coloured cards, and the fact that I'm metaphorically leveling the building to start over from scratch, I think now's a great time to try some more fringe ideas.
The painlands are probably the first place I'd go if I were looking to break rarity. I've currently got Gemstone Mine out of my list because of its limited shelf life, but it is a fair option.
I'm going to need a source for this. Scryfall doesn't corroborate but I would love to add them.
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
I cut worm harvest before realising I had built half my cube around it.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
Even Cauldron Haze could fit the bill if you gave persist to stuff like Cloudgoat Ranger. Granted, that needs specific support, but it could fit. Why sac something once when you can sac it twice?
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
People having around 30 maindeckable cards that the end of a draft is definitely something I have noticed a lot with my own and other peasant-adjacent cubes and it seems prudent to try to address it by increasing the land count. Even if you don't address this by adding more multi-colour lands, I think adding more single colour utility lands can also help accomplish the same thing.
One thing I have done a bit of but want to think more about is having more narrow build arounds or small packages of cards that can define an archetype all on their own. Things like Favorable Winds or Gray Merchant of Asphodel can be added to any peasant cube and provide a whole deck you can build around without needing much other support.For me it's less about a potential lack of fixing and more about using all of the spots in a cube efficiently (and about having less to hem and haw about during deck construction).
The types of manabases that fetches + duals + shocks + triomes enable are vastly different from what we see in peasant. Fetches are basically 5-color lands, and even an off-color fetch can still find both your main colors, so picking up even one fetch or fetchable during the draft makes you much more likely to pick more down the road (and then actually play them). Furthermore, the cost of running fixing is relatively low since the lands are mostly coming in untapped, so its not surprising to see more fixing lands being played in general, as small splashes have a good chance of being close to free.
Compare that to what we have at uncommon and below: if you want to approach the same breadth of appeal during drafting, you would use: 10 trilands, 10 landscapes, 10 gates/thriving, 5 vivids, Terramorphic Expanse, Evolving Wilds, Escape Tunnel, Ash Barrens, Cryptic Spires, Aether Hub, City of Brass, and Gemstone Mine. But: 1) these lands are far less flexible at which colors they enable; and 2) none of these lands interact with each other, so you aren't incentivized to pick more of them as you go.
And then you still have to add 18 more 2-color ETB tapped lands (i.e. Wind-Scarred Crag and friends) to make it to the recommended 61 lands for a 360 cube, and I think most of us agree that is not where we want to be. Coming into play tapped is a real cost, and I think that a not-insignificant portion of decks will actually be less incentivized to play more fixing the more they get, in order to reduce the number of times a tapped land makes them stumble.
This sort of feeds into my next point, which is that the article says 4-5 color midrange piles are mitigated by giving aggro more support, but at this point we have cut off the foundation for 2-color aggro decks by only giving them fixing which comes into play tapped.
Which is to say - I'm not fully convinced that, in this format specifically, adding more fixing actually produces the results found in the article. Of course, I'm willing to be proven wrong if results bear it out... but not willing enough to test it myself when I feel my mana is in a good place (and when I'm using too much of my brain power as it is to figure out cuts for MH3 ;)).
Finally, I don't have a reason other than "vibes" for this, but 2.54 lands per pack just feels like way too many to me, especially in a format where most of us try to keep our gold sections in check. For reference, the MTGO vintage cube directly supports a 5-color strat, has a gold section that takes up 11.7% of the cube, and still "only" has 2.17 fixing lands per pack.
With that out of the way:
True, but this isn't about the power level of the fixing, only that the fixing exists and be available the turn it is required. Besides fetches and triomes, I don't think there are many cards in vintage cubes which give you access to more than 2 colours.
As opposed to giving them no fixing? If the aggro players want that, they can still just play an all basics mana base.
For what it's worth, the only 2-colour (that is to say - guild restricted) lands I'm playing is the reveal lands cycle (10/55 lands). So the comparison between fixing lands and the gold section isn't necessarily a strong one in my opinion.
I think the biggest "gotcha" that makes this article less applicable to peasant is that key bit I mentioned above about assuming the lands are available the turn you need them. Obviously we're playing a lot of etb tapped lands, and that's why I'm so keen to avoid them unless there's no alternative.
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
Looking at my cube for more demanding mana costs (2-3 specific color pips), I find the following:
2 cmc - 6 monocolor, 15 multicolor
3 cmc - 8 monocolor, 21 multicolor
4 cmc - 9 monocolor, 10 multicolor
5 cmc - 5 monocolor, 1 multicolor
6 cmc - 4 monocolor, 1 multicolor
7 cmc - 3 monocolor, 1 multicolor
(I didn't count hybrid as demanding, but I did include cards with alternate costs/abilities that may never get cast for their actual mana cost)
And the higher the mana value goes, the less concerned I am about maximizing fixing to cast the card. Pelakka Wurm has GGG, but by the time I hit 7 mana, that's not a huge demand in a 2-color deck. It's really the 2-3 or 2-4 slots that should drive fixing density if you want to cast things on curve (or near curve, given the lands often enter tapped).
I'd be curious to see an analysis of those slots. What total or percent are people running of demanding 2-4 drops? What information would we even collect/compare? For example, I have 69 demanding mana values in the 2-4 slots of a 405 card cube, but 2/3 of those are multicolor (I run more guild slots than average). I have 23 demanding monocolor cards in those slots. So, I guess 5.7% of my cube? Is this higher or lower than average?
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
This is my main argument for including rare fixing =p
This is fair. It was more of a way for me to go... "Hey, here is a format where they actively want people to be casting 5-color spells, and they still don't hit that 17% mark. Is the cube built poorly, or is 17% actually too much?"
I think this is everything I was trying to say summed up in one sentence xD. I don't think we should be adding bad lands to our cubes just to hit some threshold that was calculated under different assumptions
Oh that's a really good point. It'd be interesting to cut their 75K sample down to just the peasant lists and see how it bears out.
Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that decks need a certain percentage of fixing lands to function reliably.
I think a lot of cubes out there really are just built poorly. Including mine!
Sure, but the "badness" of a card is context specific. Atog is legal in almost every constructed format, but only Pauper had a need to ban it (RIP). That said, I have my limits and currently they're set somewhere above "etb tapped dual lands". I get why people break rarity for lands, and I used to have shocklands in my list, but I just don't want to right now.
What is your opinion and rational on an "ideal" peasant fixing lands package using the cards currently available?
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
If I'm not careful my initial pass always ends up looking like 40% of the cube is blink, 40% sacrifice and 20% aggro.
My 540ish Peasant Cube on Cubetutor
I have never thought the graveyard decks need specific answers beyond those normally provided in Cube.
A lot of the reanimation spells are enchantments, so the enchantment removal spells do extra work here. There is no single reanimation target that provides a massive card advantage on ETB. There are no popular reanimation spells which grant haste. There are some large, hard-to-interact with creatures (ward/hexproof), but they are mostly blockable.
There are also graveyard value decks based on having a full yard, and most of those decks operate on a fair axis too. I think the most powerful spells are the ones making multiple token creatures, but those also require setup.
This all brings me around to the consensus that incidental graveyard hate is useful, but dedicated graveyard hate would be too much.
I find this Lucky Paper article really interesting based on how it addresses the question “What to do about those cards in cube people don’t play?” Cubes inevitably have cards that usually miss decks and there must be a better thing to do with those slots. Their conclusions focused around land cycles, archetype support, and power level. I was greatly influenced by the idea of adding more fixing and my Cube is now settled at 13.3% fixing lands (68/512), which is roughly 2 per 15-card pack/6 per drafter. There are three main conclusions I came to.
1 ) Fixing is archetype support. This is not to see that multi-color is an archetype, but that the likelihood of fixing being good for a drafter is as likely as, say, Envoy of the Ancestors or Bogardan Dragonheart.
2) Card choice dictates archetype power. I fought against the 4c value piles by cutting low-end value cards like Kasmina, Enigmatic Mentor or Arborback Stomper. Plus just now cutting Signets for the MDFC duals.
3) Lands that enter tapped limits the amount of viable fixing. Even in retail limited, the amount of tapped lands a deck can reasonably play sits around 4-5. Offering 6 per drafter with two-thirds of those fitting the deck is right where I want to be.
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/peasantsnowcube
-- Updated with Duskmourn: House of Horror
The PioneWer Peasant CUbe
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/pionewer
-- Updated with Murders at Karlov Manor
The way I think about peasant cube is that its a place for all the retail limited all-stars that aren't quite good enough for constructed formats to continue to shine (though I'm not sure how much that has remained the case over the past few years / masters sets / horizons sets), so the overall feel should be "strong limited." I want there to be better quality of fixing than is generally available in packs, but not constructed-level good. I think if you were playing Alara/Khans trilands instead of triomes, then fetchlands would be a perfectly acceptable power level, but I'd prefer to have the cycling utility.
There is a bit of tension around wanting fixing to be relevant to more than one player in a pod, but untapped duals are much better at supporting small splashes than tapped duals are, so I think that adds a bit more appeal to drafters who aren't strictly on both of those colors.
Though I am feeling like a major redesign might be in my future, so maybe I will find a place for the landscapes. I've been trying to re-focus individual archetypes recently, but I feel kind of painted into a corner with +1/+1 counters - it's the best thing GW does at this rarity, but too many of those cards want to only exist in one deck. Trying to hit a critical mass of cards to make that deck viable feels like I'm taking things away from other decks and I don't really relish that. MH3 having a focus on modified has made me start thinking about RW equipments and GB counters, but then those changes roll over into tokens and graveyard stuff suddenly becoming more narrow...
Plus I've been having some problems with tokens anyway: RB is trying to be about sacrificing things, but: 1) its actually the best control color pair at this rarity and 2) all the best token makers are white. I've been running into the same problems Leelue has where spirits/birds are obviously the best thing to do in the cube (seriously, Ministrant of Obligation and Battle Screech are probably actually too good), and I feel the lengths I'm going to to contain them are much worse than just scaling back / trying to find something different to do (nobody should have to cube Echoing Truth).
...Yeah, I'm probably going to take the summer to burn it all down and rebuild from the ground up
If anyone has any thoughts I'm happy to hear them! I've also come to the realization that I need to leave Bloodbraid Elf out and include Writhing Chrysalis instead, so emotional support is also greatly appreciated.
JK.
^^
My Peasant Cube thread !!! (380 cards)
Draft my Peasant Cube on Cube Cobra !!!
That's fair enough but like BrownDog said - get out buddy you're in the wrong thread haha
I've been pleasantly surprised by the quality of archetype cards for +1/+1 and equipment decks. Mechanics like For Mirroden, Living Weapon, Modified, equipment that etb attached to a token give the equip deck a big boost
. The options are much much better today than they were only a few years ago. I've been particularly impressed by the quality of cards I've found that both support a +1/+1 counters deck, but also support other archetypes as well. Here's a list of cards I'm currently seriously considering for the archetype:
Yeah at a certain point I expect you just have to come up with alternative ways to create sacrifice fodder (cards that cost mana to reuse like Reassembling Skeleton, cards with effects like Afterlife for example), to give you cards with multiple bodies, but spread those multiple bodies over time, rather than creating them all at once.
I know this feel.
71 more cards to cut. Maybe I just bump the cube up from 405 to 450 and call it a day..
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
That said my cube is currently at 445 and my goal is to get it to 400 so that it feels better given we normally draft right now with 6 people because that extra 50 cards really does make it feel sometimes that a whole section of the cube isn't present vs what 400 should feel like.
But really, if I'm out here killing sacred cows already, it seems much better to just junk Kitchen Finks and Murderous Redcap instead. There certainly isn't a lack of playable green 3s or black 4s anymore.