Pretty bummed about this. Always appreciated the discussion here.
Sounds like it will stay around through M20 spoiler season, so we'll have that at least.
In mono-black it looks pretty good. In multicolor black decks, it might be a while before this is better than Disfigure. 3 actual factual Swamp cards can be harder to reach in like Grixis midrange and Esper control than it might look, so I'm not sure this makes it in unless you're running a multiple dual/shock/fetch base or you play a lot of mono black.
But on the other hand, Disfigure can feel pretty bad if you draw it late in a grindy game, whereas this could take out a Titan.
Dredge one seems like a real good upside to me... I think you are underselling it. If you have a spell only for artifact destruction this seems like the best.
I think this is considerably worse than Abrade, Fiery Confluence, and Goblin Cratermaker, and that's just in Red. You'd really run this over those three and over anything in any other color as well?
Considering that cubes used to run Mutilate, this card doesn't seem that far off.
That said, for smaller cubes already running Damnation, Languish, Toxic Deluge, and Living Death, another sweeper might not really be necessary.
Thank you both for the replies. So landwalk and things like Shackles would still work, right?
It seems like the only downsides of snowlands is an astethic one and the cost. It would be weird having all snow lands for like 5 cards but if they are worth it, maybe?
Correct.
That said, you can MAKE there be downsides in your cube construction if you want to, such as by running Freyalise's Radiance.
Brief threadjack but can someone link a place where the differences between snow lands and regular lands are explained? I want to be informed before I potentially make the switch.
There's no inherent difference. It only matters for cards that reference snow.
I've never really considered including any guild mana rocks in my cube previously, because I didn't like how much stronger signets felt in some guilds than others, and didn't like that the talismans were an incomplete cycle. The printing of these means that I'm going to be looking to add the Talisman cycle in (which also means that I need to find 2 cuts in each color to make room )
Those all seem like cut-able cards to me, so I think you are on the right track. I have a special place in my heart for Chaos Warp and I imagine others would say the same about Waterfront Bouncer, but in reality neither one is probably crucial.
If I'm understanding this correctly (and that's a big "if"), this analysis essentially applies only to cubes that are of a size and drafter quantity that results in "leftover" cards. That is to say, if you are talking about a 360-card cube with 8 drafters, this doesn't apply.
I'm also curious how the larger quantity of cards in monocolor contributes to this variability. In other words, if you ran the same analysis but with no guild cards at all, would you see that say, red, is over/underrepresented? If so, that would seem to invalidate the initial findings.
Maybe I'm missing this completely, but the one sentence summary seems to be "If you run an extra card in one of your guilds, cards of that guild will show up more often, even when not drafting the entire cube" which seems like it would HAVE to be mathematically true, even if it was a very small fraction of the time. The question is, how did you determine that this small fraction of the time was big enough to "matter". What defines "mattering"?
It's not a boltable 4-drop, it's a non-boltable 5-drop (leave up the undying ability).
And black is usually considered to be lacking 5-drops. Seems solid to me too, though I find it hard to evaluate in theory; it could be better or worse than it first appears.
Slightly off topic, but are Talismans/Signets better than the other generic 2-drop mana rocks? I'm not running any of them right now, but I am running Mind Stone, Coldsteel Heart, Everflowing Chalice, and Sphere of the Suns. At 360, it seems really difficult to find space for 10 2-drop mana rocks. Am I making a mistake?
I like the metric of P1P1 better. The "if it resolves" thing is going to devalue reactive cards like counterspells.
Tinker vs. Show and Tell
Sounds like it will stay around through M20 spoiler season, so we'll have that at least.
But on the other hand, Disfigure can feel pretty bad if you draw it late in a grindy game, whereas this could take out a Titan.
I think this is considerably worse than Abrade, Fiery Confluence, and Goblin Cratermaker, and that's just in Red. You'd really run this over those three and over anything in any other color as well?
That said, for smaller cubes already running Damnation, Languish, Toxic Deluge, and Living Death, another sweeper might not really be necessary.
Correct.
That said, you can MAKE there be downsides in your cube construction if you want to, such as by running Freyalise's Radiance.
There's no inherent difference. It only matters for cards that reference snow.
Those all seem like cut-able cards to me, so I think you are on the right track. I have a special place in my heart for Chaos Warp and I imagine others would say the same about Waterfront Bouncer, but in reality neither one is probably crucial.
I'm also curious how the larger quantity of cards in monocolor contributes to this variability. In other words, if you ran the same analysis but with no guild cards at all, would you see that say, red, is over/underrepresented? If so, that would seem to invalidate the initial findings.
Maybe I'm missing this completely, but the one sentence summary seems to be "If you run an extra card in one of your guilds, cards of that guild will show up more often, even when not drafting the entire cube" which seems like it would HAVE to be mathematically true, even if it was a very small fraction of the time. The question is, how did you determine that this small fraction of the time was big enough to "matter". What defines "mattering"?
And black is usually considered to be lacking 5-drops. Seems solid to me too, though I find it hard to evaluate in theory; it could be better or worse than it first appears.