Having played with the MDFCs a handful of times in ZNR sealed and in my Cube environment, I'm already really impressed. As great as cycling is as a mechanic, I might be convinced that the MDFCs are just better.
The problem with the Secluded Steppe, as Leelue has pointed out, is that ~40% of the time you just cycle into another useless land. The MDFC spell sides are all overcosted, but represent 100% gas when you need them. On the other end of the spectrum if you are desperate for land drops early, a Striped Riverwinder in your hand only represents a land ~40% of the time.
The reliability of having the exact card type you need at any point in the game has been extremely powerful, and that's not even mentioning the positive effect they have on mulligan decisions. I'm overtesting currently with 14 of the 20 uncommon MDFCs, but it's looking like the majority them are here to stay.
The problem with the Secluded Steppe, as Leelue has pointed out, is that ~40% of the time you just cycle into another useless land. The MDFC spell sides are all overcosted, but represent 100% gas when you need them. On the other end of the spectrum if you are desperate for land drops early, a Striped Riverwinder in your hand only represents a land ~40% of the time.
I am not convinced by this argument. Even if the next card is a land it still gets you closer to relevant (actual good) cards. Don't get me wrong: I think quite a few of the MDFCs are probably cubeable in 450+ but I would argue that you should probably cube the cycling lands before them.
Don't get me wrong: I think quite a few of the MDFCs are probably cubeable in 450+ but I would argue that you should probably cube the cycling lands before them.
I can't see an argument for that, unless you have a strict objection to DFCs. Even if I'm wrong about the raw power level of the MDFCs (seriously just test them, they play way better than they look), Blackbloom Rogue and friends are so much more interesting as game pieces from a cube design, drafting, and deckbuilding standpoint than something incredibly generic like Barren Moor.
Whether the MDFCs are more interesting than the cycling lands is subjective although I actually agree that they are. I was talking more from a pure power prospective. I should probably have made that more clear in the statement.
Saying that cycling is better because even a dud cycle "digs you closer" sounds suspect to me. The awesome card ontop of your deck is worth much less than the passable card in your hand.
Cubing a card solely because your 23rd card is generally worse is sketchy reasoning imo. There are definitely arguments for mdfcs, but "better than your 23rd card" is basically the definition of filler. Maybe this is a personal thing, but if I consider a card filler it's on the list to be cut.
Is Akoum Warrior better than Ghitu Encampment, a played card that is getting phased out? Similarly, Sejiri Shelter vs. Shelter or Malakir Rebirth vs. Undying Evil/Supernatural Stamina? I understand that these aren't straightforward comparisons in the same way the cycling lands are, but comparing mdfcs to a cycle of cards I don't think anyone has played for years is pretty pointless even if you decide mdfcs are better (which I think I agree they are).
I am half tempted to take 2 MDFCs of each color, add them to the pool of my next draft, and just see how they play out. I have to imagine that MDFCs will lead to less mulligans, which will in turn promote smoother game play. I don't mind sacrificing a little power to add some versatility and a higher percentage of "keepable" hands. However, I'm not convinced of how much of a percentage it'll actually add. Is it really worth it. Obviously, "getting there" with a 17 lands and powerful spells will always feel better than playing a MDFC or two.
Who knows...? It's a cool argument to have and I've heard great things about how they play out. I think it's worth testing. I'm never opposed to depowering to promote smoother gameplay.
Would people really miss Gods Willing (an effect I am playing, especially for the aura decks) if I replace it with Sejiri Shelter? Is the 1 extra mana worth a potential smoother draw. A 2 lander with Gods Willing vs a 2 lander with Sejiri Shelter.. which one is more keepable? Maybe you draw lands and have a slightly overcosted protection spell, but if you whiff, you have an out and didn't have to mull and start the game with 1 less card.
I have added the Tangled Florahedron and Bala Ged Recovery, and so far I have been impressed with both of them. The aforementioned smoother mulliganing decisions are the real deal, they actually allow you not to be hit by manascrew or flood as hard, which is really good. I'm not too sure about the others, but some of them seem okay. (Blackbloom Rogue and Akoum Warrior, mostly)
Even Tangled Florahedron doing work? That's one I was suspicious of not making it, seemed like you'd want both versions of the card early in the game where it'd be pretty bad on each side. Lategame junk. If even it's doing well though... Might wind up with a lot of these in the cube.
Yeah, obviously he's still a pretty bad topdeck lategame, But most manadorks are. In more aggressive Golgari or Gruul builds you can keep some really high-risk hands, where the Hedron functions as a land when you need it or extra ramp when you don't.
When I read that people are so excited about keeping a starting hand that they play a card that is either a Woodland Mystic, which is probably the worst mana dork ever printed in 27 years of Magic, or a Timber Gorge that doesn't tap for red mana, I have to wonder what kind of mulligan rules they play with in a casual limited format like CU/be. I think the last time there was a discussion about it many people (including me) said they play with one free mulligan, which I can say from personal experience has worked great and without problems in hundreds of CU/be games. And now we even have the London mulligan on top of it, which is almost like (another) free mulligan.
Is keeping a bad starting hand really that great of a feat in a casual setting that suddenly even the trashiest trash cards become playable in CU/be? Wouldn't it be much easier to simply adjust the mulligan rule until you don't lose a game just because the first hand you drew only had a single land? Especially considering that adding land #18 is raising your chance to have at least 2 lands in your starting hand by a whopping 2%, so the big (or even noticeable) difference these cards make is just in your imagination unless you play half a dozen of them.
You people play with free mulligans? Gross. Mulligans can be one of the most interesting things in the game.
Sometimes it can be an interesting decision, but a lot of times the first mulligan is a no-brainer because you have 0-1 or 6-7 lands in your hand. Then it's not interesting, it's annoying because you get a disadvantage solely due to bad luck.
There is a reason why the mulligan rule was improved throughout the years, I remember the super boring pro tour final before the London mulligan was introduced where the winner only won because his opponent drew bad hands and either couldn't do anything or only had four cards in his hand when the game started. Imo the only reason why they don't play with a free mulligan in tournaments are combo decks and generally the highly streamlined and fast decks especially in non-rotating formats. The London mulligan is already a huge improvement and actually not far away from a free mulligan anyway.
In a tame limited environment like CU/be there is absolutely no reason not to allow a free mulligan. If you use your free mulligan to get rid of a playable, but not great hand you are still taking a high risk as the next mulligan will give you one card less, so if you draw something even worse you will get a disadvantage. That's why it's mostly an insurance against boring non-games and not a way to let people stupidly draw cards until they have the perfect starting hand.
Until people are going to 4, mulligans still generally make for a functional game of magic, so I don't really see the need for free mulligans when they can alter deckbuilding. Starting from unbalanced positions also often makes for interesting games (and if being down 2 cards loses the game it generally happens really quickly). Informally, if someone ever went to 4 I made them draw 5 or 6, but I don't think I've had anyone go to 4 since London mulligan was introduced.
//////
In the opener you're generally looking for 3 lands. The chance you get 2 or more lands in your opener with 17 lands is 89.5%. 18 lands brings it to 91.9%. Exactly 2 lands is 24.5% vs. 21.6%. If you want 3 or more lands it's 64.9% vs. 70.3%. On the play with a 2 lander you're 33% vs. 30% to miss your third land drop. 19% vs. 17% on the draw.
So, comparing 17 vs. 18 lands, on the play you're 8.0% vs. 6.5% to miss your 3rd land. On the draw 4.6% vs. 3.7%. 0.9-1.5% isn't really a relevant amount imo, especially when these calcs presume you keep every 2 lander, so I'm not really convinced aiding mulligans is a valid primary reason to run mdfcs (outside of maybe going from 14-15 to 15-16 lands). I am ignoring the potential to avoid mana screw, but that's less important and shouldn't be more than a percent at most.
One of my favorite games was a comeback victory after i mulled to 4. If you don't want varience don't play card games. If I brick on my third land 5 draws in a row do you mind if I just search for one on my next draw? Dumb.
One of my favorite games was a comeback victory after i mulled to 4. If you don't want varience don't play card games. If I brick on my third land 5 draws in a row do you mind if I just search for one on my next draw? Dumb.
I don't play with free mulls. I never have and never will... but that variance is specifically what makes magic such a frustrating game sometimes. I don't make a really fun deck with so many cool synergies to lose because I get statistically unlucky. Mulling to 4 or 5 is usually a loss, and really sucks the fun out of a match. Imagine even being the opponent to someone who mulls.... I don't cube JUST to win... I cube to win AND play interesting games of magic. Winning in the finals because my opponent gets land screwed game 1 and mulls to 4 game 2 has happened before and is really horrible and vice versa.
I can absolutely see why people play with free mulligans. I personally don't because I like honoring the rules of magic, but I certainly wouldn't call that sort of thinking dumb.
PS. I cubed the other night with the new MDFCs and didn't care for them. That whole argument about mulling and keepable hands was cute, but I found that it didn't really make a big difference... Started a cool conversation though.
My group has played with free mulligans at the kitchen table for as long as I can remember (roughly back to 1998). It was always just kind of a friendly thing. Like, "There's nothing at stake here, man, just draw seven. No big deal." I realize why free mulligans would be bad for competitive gameplay and we've had a couple people cube with us that have definitely taken advantage of it. For the most part, though, I've not see the free mulligan rule play a part in drafting or deck building among my regular group and no one is mulliganing into oblivion to find that perfect hand. Again, nowadays we're typically gathered in my basement, drinking beers, and playing cube as a way to hang out with each other and play a game we all enjoy.
With that said, though, I have found that the MDFCs have really helped smooth out the draws in ZNR limited. They turn hands I would have otherwise mulliganed into something keepable. Neither side is great on them, but the duality and versatility really push them. I don't mind playing something like Zof Consumption as a tapped Swamp in order to keep making my land drops, but sometimes you draw it on turn eight and you just win the game with it. I'm not recommending Zof Consumption for peasant cubes, but I do think there's arguments to be made for even the MDFCs that might look lackluster on the front side.
One of my favorite games was a comeback victory after i mulled to 4. If you don't want varience don't play card games. If I brick on my third land 5 draws in a row do you mind if I just search for one on my next draw? Dumb.
If variance means 'I win without any deckbuilding or playing skills involved because my opponent was locked out of the game by bad luck and the game of Magic we didn't play was less fun than a game of coin flip' then the only thing that is dumb is if you allow it to happen if you can avoid it because it's just a waste of time.
With a free mulligan you already have the option to mull without penalty if you only have 2 lands in your starting hand, so if you don't draw a third one it's your fault most of the time. But yes, if you start with 2 lands in your hand and still haven't drawn the third one by turn 7 then it sucks all the fun out of the game and the time spent playing such a non-game was wasted. Thankfully the game will be over anyway at that point usually, so no need to adjust anything (and yet another reason why a free mulligan is a good idea). Plus it statistically only happens in ~1% of games started with a 2 land hand, so that's nothing you need to be too concerned about.
And for the one fun game where you came back after mulling to 4 you got a dozen games where you mulled to 4 and sat there hopelessly staring at your useless cards while only your opponent was playing Magic. You can have exactly the same fun of a 'comeback victory' when both players start with 7 cards in their hand, so why bother with this?
I know I don't post much around here, but I am definitely on the fence about the MDFC cards.
It is hard to justify including a front side that is worse than other cards in the cube, even with an ETB-tapped land as a consolation/dual use. That being said, the ability to have the flexibility and another opportunity for a land in hand is definitely worth considering.
The last time I attended a store draft (back in the DOM days), I started 0-2 because of the most awful, rotten luck in terms of land droughts in opening hands. My initial deck was aggressive and included 17 lands (which I thought was enough for a low CMC, aggro-ish deck). Round 1 Game 1 saw 0 lands, mulligan, 0 lands, mulligan, 0 lands ... until I had 4 cards in hand (1 land). I lost. I added another land (18) thinking that should solve it - it was just bad luck after all. First hand 0 lands, mulligan ... 5 cards in hand (1 land) but did not draw another land for the remainder of the game.
Round 2, no lands in opening hand. Mulligan, no lands, repeat. Down to 5 cards (1 land) and, just like before, that was all I got before the game ended. For the second game I added 2 more lands for a whopping 20. I had to mulligan down to 4. No lands in hand, no land in scry. I conceded. My opponent still wanted to play, so we marked our sheet and played for fun. What do you know, lands aplenty. Still, that was a terrible event - and it simply was no fun (okay, maybe a bit strong, I did go 2-1 in the last round to finish 1-2 overall). I guess the only consolation was that I achieved something that was statistically highly improbable!
Long story short, I am not 100% sold, but then again I am also a lot more agreeable to generous mulligans due to land shortage.
I don't have any DFCs in my cube because I use penny sleeves and didn't want to deal with either seeing a non-Magic back (and knowing what card they chose) or running checklist cards. And the MDFCs do nothing to make me reconsider my stance. Even the best ones, with the least disparity when compared against normal versions of the same effect just don't seem worth it to me.
- Malakir Rebirth is a bad Supernatural Stamina/Undying Evil variant that drains you whether the creature comes back or not and doesn't offer any type of pump.
- Bala Ged Recovery is a more expensive Regrowth. Would I run it over Recollect? Absolutely, but I'm not running that. I'm not even running Regrowth because that felt more spellslinger, which is my Izzet archetype.
- Tangled Florahedron is a bad Llanowar Elves/Elvish Mystic.
- Khalni Ambush is a niche ability that sometimes you want and sometimes you don't (yes, an argument for MDFC flexibility). Unless you have the bigger creature, you may be spending two cards to get rid of their one. but I prefer one-sided cards like Nature's Way and Ram Through.
- Kazuul's Fury is another niche card that is sometimes game-winning and sometimes garbage. This and Ambush are both cards i would run for redundancy in a Commander deck with a similar theme, but I can't see running them in Peasant Cube because they're either an overcosted niche effect or a tapped mono-color land. It just doesn't seem like enough to me.
Let's compare the MDFCs to the spell-lands from original Zendikar. Halimar Depths offers you both the tapped land and a free - no mana - half Ponder. Soaring Seacliff offers both the tapped land and a free Jump. And I don't see many people arguing for those. Granted, they are sorcery speed and limited functionality, but the MDFCs make you choose one or the other (land/spell) and make you pay more for the nonland effect.
How have people liked playing Fearless Fledgling? I dismissed it at first as a bear that sometimes is better, but my cube supports both flyers and +1/+1 counters, so I might reconsider. It could also ease the sting of top-decking a land late game. Is it good or just adequate?
Murderous Cut feels like a 3 mana card most of the time (although it is sometimes great when you can play cut and another four mana spell with five land). Bloodchief's Thirst seems like a Disfigure with an overpriced Murder attached for the late game. Or is the sorcery speed too detrimental?
Murderous Cut feels like a 3 mana card most of the time (although it is sometimes great when you can play cut and another four mana spell with five land). Bloodchief's Thirst seems like a Disfigure with an overpriced Murder attached for the late game. Or is the sorcery speed too detrimental?
Cubing a card solely because your 23rd card is generally worse is sketchy reasoning imo. There are definitely arguments for mdfcs, but "better than your 23rd card" is basically the definition of filler. Maybe this is a personal thing, but if I consider a card filler it's on the list to be cut.
I realized after the fact that this is what my argument sounded like, and I kid you not it bothered me for like 2 weeks. I should have expanded my argument to try and show that this modal nature between two different resources puts it ahead of X% of the cards in your deck Y% of the time. But I got a bit worn out, and haven't been back until today.
I don't play with free mulls. I never have and never will... but that variance is specifically what makes magic such a frustrating game sometimes.
I can absolutely see why people play with free mulligans.
I have transitioned into "First mulligan free, every one after that is London" and it's been a dream. It irons out the rougher parts of magic but it at least keeps people honest. Cali makes the correct observation about how free mulligans don't cause people to just abuse the system and mull to get the full combo, but I do think it misses the mark a tad because we all know that people will occasionally succumb to temptation and toss semi-questionable hands. So I appreciate having the looming threat of backfiring be around.
Also, free mulligans have the unintended side effect of helping people run greedy mana bases. YMMWV on that I suppose.
And just as an aside, the london mulligan should go down as one of the best rule changes of all time imo. Losing the worst card from your hand is much less damning than losing a random card from your hand. And moreover, it's skill-testing.
Let's compare the MDFCs to the spell-lands from original Zendikar. Halimar Depths offers you both the tapped land and a free - no mana - half Ponder. Soaring Seacliff offers both the tapped land and a free Jump. And I don't see many people arguing for those. Granted, they are sorcery speed and limited functionality, but the MDFCs make you choose one or the other (land/spell) and make you pay more for the nonland effect.
How have people liked playing Fearless Fledgling? I dismissed it at first as a bear that sometimes is better, but my cube supports both flyers and +1/+1 counters, so I might reconsider. It could also ease the sting of top-decking a land late game. Is it good or just adequate?
Halimar depths is probably the best of those spell lands from ZEN, and it offers about a... third of a mana's worth of value. It's just about the definition of marginal. That's generally the argument against running cycling lands. The MDFCs are only marginally worse than halimar depths when you play them as lands but are waaaaay more value when you play them as spells.
And while I have yet to see the fledgling in play in cube, I have been taking it over like half the rares in the set for normal draft. It's obscene.
The problem with the Secluded Steppe, as Leelue has pointed out, is that ~40% of the time you just cycle into another useless land. The MDFC spell sides are all overcosted, but represent 100% gas when you need them. On the other end of the spectrum if you are desperate for land drops early, a Striped Riverwinder in your hand only represents a land ~40% of the time.
The reliability of having the exact card type you need at any point in the game has been extremely powerful, and that's not even mentioning the positive effect they have on mulligan decisions. I'm overtesting currently with 14 of the 20 uncommon MDFCs, but it's looking like the majority them are here to stay.
Formerly hedgehogger
I am not convinced by this argument. Even if the next card is a land it still gets you closer to relevant (actual good) cards. Don't get me wrong: I think quite a few of the MDFCs are probably cubeable in 450+ but I would argue that you should probably cube the cycling lands before them.
My C/Ube on Cube Cobra
I can't see an argument for that, unless you have a strict objection to DFCs. Even if I'm wrong about the raw power level of the MDFCs (seriously just test them, they play way better than they look), Blackbloom Rogue and friends are so much more interesting as game pieces from a cube design, drafting, and deckbuilding standpoint than something incredibly generic like Barren Moor.
Formerly hedgehogger
My C/Ube on Cube Cobra
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
Is Akoum Warrior better than Ghitu Encampment, a played card that is getting phased out? Similarly, Sejiri Shelter vs. Shelter or Malakir Rebirth vs. Undying Evil/Supernatural Stamina? I understand that these aren't straightforward comparisons in the same way the cycling lands are, but comparing mdfcs to a cycle of cards I don't think anyone has played for years is pretty pointless even if you decide mdfcs are better (which I think I agree they are).
Who knows...? It's a cool argument to have and I've heard great things about how they play out. I think it's worth testing. I'm never opposed to depowering to promote smoother gameplay.
Would people really miss Gods Willing (an effect I am playing, especially for the aura decks) if I replace it with Sejiri Shelter? Is the 1 extra mana worth a potential smoother draw. A 2 lander with Gods Willing vs a 2 lander with Sejiri Shelter.. which one is more keepable? Maybe you draw lands and have a slightly overcosted protection spell, but if you whiff, you have an out and didn't have to mull and start the game with 1 less card.
My Peasant Cube thread !!! (380 cards)
Draft my Peasant Cube on Cube Cobra !!!
WiJ
Peasant 540 Cube
WiJ
Peasant 540 Cube
Is keeping a bad starting hand really that great of a feat in a casual setting that suddenly even the trashiest trash cards become playable in CU/be? Wouldn't it be much easier to simply adjust the mulligan rule until you don't lose a game just because the first hand you drew only had a single land? Especially considering that adding land #18 is raising your chance to have at least 2 lands in your starting hand by a whopping 2%, so the big (or even noticeable) difference these cards make is just in your imagination unless you play half a dozen of them.
My Old School Battlebox
My Premodern Battlebox
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
Sometimes it can be an interesting decision, but a lot of times the first mulligan is a no-brainer because you have 0-1 or 6-7 lands in your hand. Then it's not interesting, it's annoying because you get a disadvantage solely due to bad luck.
There is a reason why the mulligan rule was improved throughout the years, I remember the super boring pro tour final before the London mulligan was introduced where the winner only won because his opponent drew bad hands and either couldn't do anything or only had four cards in his hand when the game started. Imo the only reason why they don't play with a free mulligan in tournaments are combo decks and generally the highly streamlined and fast decks especially in non-rotating formats. The London mulligan is already a huge improvement and actually not far away from a free mulligan anyway.
In a tame limited environment like CU/be there is absolutely no reason not to allow a free mulligan. If you use your free mulligan to get rid of a playable, but not great hand you are still taking a high risk as the next mulligan will give you one card less, so if you draw something even worse you will get a disadvantage. That's why it's mostly an insurance against boring non-games and not a way to let people stupidly draw cards until they have the perfect starting hand.
My Old School Battlebox
My Premodern Battlebox
//////
In the opener you're generally looking for 3 lands. The chance you get 2 or more lands in your opener with 17 lands is 89.5%. 18 lands brings it to 91.9%. Exactly 2 lands is 24.5% vs. 21.6%. If you want 3 or more lands it's 64.9% vs. 70.3%. On the play with a 2 lander you're 33% vs. 30% to miss your third land drop. 19% vs. 17% on the draw.
So, comparing 17 vs. 18 lands, on the play you're 8.0% vs. 6.5% to miss your 3rd land. On the draw 4.6% vs. 3.7%. 0.9-1.5% isn't really a relevant amount imo, especially when these calcs presume you keep every 2 lander, so I'm not really convinced aiding mulligans is a valid primary reason to run mdfcs (outside of maybe going from 14-15 to 15-16 lands). I am ignoring the potential to avoid mana screw, but that's less important and shouldn't be more than a percent at most.
Draft it on Cubetutor here, and CubeCobra here.
Treasure Cruise did nothing wrong.
I don't play with free mulls. I never have and never will... but that variance is specifically what makes magic such a frustrating game sometimes. I don't make a really fun deck with so many cool synergies to lose because I get statistically unlucky. Mulling to 4 or 5 is usually a loss, and really sucks the fun out of a match. Imagine even being the opponent to someone who mulls.... I don't cube JUST to win... I cube to win AND play interesting games of magic. Winning in the finals because my opponent gets land screwed game 1 and mulls to 4 game 2 has happened before and is really horrible and vice versa.
I can absolutely see why people play with free mulligans. I personally don't because I like honoring the rules of magic, but I certainly wouldn't call that sort of thinking dumb.
PS. I cubed the other night with the new MDFCs and didn't care for them. That whole argument about mulling and keepable hands was cute, but I found that it didn't really make a big difference... Started a cool conversation though.
My Peasant Cube thread !!! (380 cards)
Draft my Peasant Cube on Cube Cobra !!!
With that said, though, I have found that the MDFCs have really helped smooth out the draws in ZNR limited. They turn hands I would have otherwise mulliganed into something keepable. Neither side is great on them, but the duality and versatility really push them. I don't mind playing something like Zof Consumption as a tapped Swamp in order to keep making my land drops, but sometimes you draw it on turn eight and you just win the game with it. I'm not recommending Zof Consumption for peasant cubes, but I do think there's arguments to be made for even the MDFCs that might look lackluster on the front side.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
If variance means 'I win without any deckbuilding or playing skills involved because my opponent was locked out of the game by bad luck and the game of Magic we didn't play was less fun than a game of coin flip' then the only thing that is dumb is if you allow it to happen if you can avoid it because it's just a waste of time.
With a free mulligan you already have the option to mull without penalty if you only have 2 lands in your starting hand, so if you don't draw a third one it's your fault most of the time. But yes, if you start with 2 lands in your hand and still haven't drawn the third one by turn 7 then it sucks all the fun out of the game and the time spent playing such a non-game was wasted. Thankfully the game will be over anyway at that point usually, so no need to adjust anything (and yet another reason why a free mulligan is a good idea). Plus it statistically only happens in ~1% of games started with a 2 land hand, so that's nothing you need to be too concerned about.
And for the one fun game where you came back after mulling to 4 you got a dozen games where you mulled to 4 and sat there hopelessly staring at your useless cards while only your opponent was playing Magic. You can have exactly the same fun of a 'comeback victory' when both players start with 7 cards in their hand, so why bother with this?
My Old School Battlebox
My Premodern Battlebox
It is hard to justify including a front side that is worse than other cards in the cube, even with an ETB-tapped land as a consolation/dual use. That being said, the ability to have the flexibility and another opportunity for a land in hand is definitely worth considering.
The last time I attended a store draft (back in the DOM days), I started 0-2 because of the most awful, rotten luck in terms of land droughts in opening hands. My initial deck was aggressive and included 17 lands (which I thought was enough for a low CMC, aggro-ish deck). Round 1 Game 1 saw 0 lands, mulligan, 0 lands, mulligan, 0 lands ... until I had 4 cards in hand (1 land). I lost. I added another land (18) thinking that should solve it - it was just bad luck after all. First hand 0 lands, mulligan ... 5 cards in hand (1 land) but did not draw another land for the remainder of the game.
Round 2, no lands in opening hand. Mulligan, no lands, repeat. Down to 5 cards (1 land) and, just like before, that was all I got before the game ended. For the second game I added 2 more lands for a whopping 20. I had to mulligan down to 4. No lands in hand, no land in scry. I conceded. My opponent still wanted to play, so we marked our sheet and played for fun. What do you know, lands aplenty. Still, that was a terrible event - and it simply was no fun (okay, maybe a bit strong, I did go 2-1 in the last round to finish 1-2 overall). I guess the only consolation was that I achieved something that was statistically highly improbable!
Long story short, I am not 100% sold, but then again I am also a lot more agreeable to generous mulligans due to land shortage.
450 Card Peasant Cube on CubeCobra
450 Card Pauper Cube on CubeCobra
- Malakir Rebirth is a bad Supernatural Stamina/Undying Evil variant that drains you whether the creature comes back or not and doesn't offer any type of pump.
- Bala Ged Recovery is a more expensive Regrowth. Would I run it over Recollect? Absolutely, but I'm not running that. I'm not even running Regrowth because that felt more spellslinger, which is my Izzet archetype.
- Tangled Florahedron is a bad Llanowar Elves/Elvish Mystic.
- Khalni Ambush is a niche ability that sometimes you want and sometimes you don't (yes, an argument for MDFC flexibility). Unless you have the bigger creature, you may be spending two cards to get rid of their one. but I prefer one-sided cards like Nature's Way and Ram Through.
- Kazuul's Fury is another niche card that is sometimes game-winning and sometimes garbage. This and Ambush are both cards i would run for redundancy in a Commander deck with a similar theme, but I can't see running them in Peasant Cube because they're either an overcosted niche effect or a tapped mono-color land. It just doesn't seem like enough to me.
Let's compare the MDFCs to the spell-lands from original Zendikar. Halimar Depths offers you both the tapped land and a free - no mana - half Ponder. Soaring Seacliff offers both the tapped land and a free Jump. And I don't see many people arguing for those. Granted, they are sorcery speed and limited functionality, but the MDFCs make you choose one or the other (land/spell) and make you pay more for the nonland effect.
____________________________________________________________________
How have people liked playing Fearless Fledgling? I dismissed it at first as a bear that sometimes is better, but my cube supports both flyers and +1/+1 counters, so I might reconsider. It could also ease the sting of top-decking a land late game. Is it good or just adequate?
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Murderous Cut feels like a 3 mana card most of the time (although it is sometimes great when you can play cut and another four mana spell with five land).
Bloodchief's Thirst seems like a Disfigure with an overpriced Murder attached for the late game. Or is the sorcery speed too detrimental?
My C/Ube on Cube Cobra
Personally the sorcery speed kills the card.
I realized after the fact that this is what my argument sounded like, and I kid you not it bothered me for like 2 weeks. I should have expanded my argument to try and show that this modal nature between two different resources puts it ahead of X% of the cards in your deck Y% of the time. But I got a bit worn out, and haven't been back until today.
//
I have transitioned into "First mulligan free, every one after that is London" and it's been a dream. It irons out the rougher parts of magic but it at least keeps people honest. Cali makes the correct observation about how free mulligans don't cause people to just abuse the system and mull to get the full combo, but I do think it misses the mark a tad because we all know that people will occasionally succumb to temptation and toss semi-questionable hands. So I appreciate having the looming threat of backfiring be around.
Also, free mulligans have the unintended side effect of helping people run greedy mana bases. YMMWV on that I suppose.
And just as an aside, the london mulligan should go down as one of the best rule changes of all time imo. Losing the worst card from your hand is much less damning than losing a random card from your hand. And moreover, it's skill-testing.
Halimar depths is probably the best of those spell lands from ZEN, and it offers about a... third of a mana's worth of value. It's just about the definition of marginal. That's generally the argument against running cycling lands. The MDFCs are only marginally worse than halimar depths when you play them as lands but are waaaaay more value when you play them as spells.
And while I have yet to see the fledgling in play in cube, I have been taking it over like half the rares in the set for normal draft. It's obscene.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article