2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • 1

    posted a message on [MID][CUBE] Stitcher of Dolls
    I was so excited about this card until I learned that "decayed" means that the token's can't block and need to be sacrificed if they attack. Now I think it's cool, but I'm probably going to pass on it.
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on [CUBE][MID] Light up the Night
    I'm definitely testing htis one. If Spikefield Hazard has taught me anything, it's that there are a lot of spots where I'm *very happy* to have access to "R: deal 1 dmg". A fireball with that as the floor is something I'm into, especially since my list supports both Zirda and Devoted Druid as infinite mana combos, so I'm always looking to include X spells.
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on [SCD] Geralf's Messenger
    Quote from wtwlf123 »
    It would go "infinite" with Luminous Broodmoth/Solemnity + a free sacrifice outlet.

    It would be missing multiple other cards to go infinite with Yawgmoth.


    While Undying Creatures aren't in most cubes, You just need a clone, right? And there are three clones in many lists now (Image, MDFC, Metamorph). It's not fully infinite, but generally repeatable pay 1 life -> deal 2 dmg wins the game.
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on [CUBE] Glasspool Mimic // Glasspool Shore
    Okay, I lied, I'm responding one more time because I LOVE the response above from Fires, and wanted to do more than upvote!

    I think all of that logic and evaluation is sound, and I absolutely see where you're coming from. I think we have different expectations for the mechanic as a whole. For example, I expect many of these cards to see constructed play all the way from Standard down to Legacy. They all won't, just like all magic cards don't, but many will. Thank you so much for outlining your expectations, beliefs, and evaluations so clearly. I really appreciated it!

    I just believe these cards change the game significantly. And I will happily admit I'm wrong if proven otherwise.

    Cheers! And for anybody else who stays in the discussion, enjoy Smile
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on [CUBE] Glasspool Mimic // Glasspool Shore
    Quote from Marl Karx »
    Quote from dschumm »
    To me this card is the real teat. A powerful card for a reasonable mana cost, that is situational bad/excellent. But I like it more than the combat trick ones because you get to sculpt a plan with it. They effect is also usually better late, when you dont need land. So if excellent i may try more flip catds


    Personally I don't think the upside of the land in the early game is much of an "upside" since etb tapped is so horrible.


    You know what is also absolutely horrible? Every single mode on Izzet Charm. In fact, I would rather have an extra colored tapland in my deck over UR: any single mode of Izzet charm. Zero of those individual modes would make a 2000 sized cube. However, the card is fantastic and a lower-sized-izzet-section-staple because it provide full coverage: a set of options such that one is always useful. I view MDFCs in a very similar light.
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on [CUBE] Glasspool Mimic // Glasspool Shore
    Quote from wtwlf123 »
    Quote from happyjosiah »
    you're going to find the spell side to be dead a good bit of the time and be wishing for an island.


    This is the case with almost every non-land card. Every spell can be a dead card in your hand based on the board state or lack of available mana. But at least with MDFCs, they can be a land in cases where you really need them to be. This likely won't replace a basic for me during deckbuilding in the same way the mythic MDFCs do, since they have to enter tapped. It'll be a playable non-land card that can be used in a land in situations where you'd otherwise be stuck with yet another uncastable card in your hand.


    SO SO SO SO SO MUCH THIS

    Magic is a game of probability. The reason we play cards like Preordain is that they skew the probability distributions of our draws in the direction we need (agency via card selection). MDFCs do something very similar. By having spells attached to lands, this provides a player agency over that variant distribution. What do you need more, a spell or a land? MDFCs will ALWAYS be whichever you need. That certainty is important. It means these cards need to be evaluated with more optimism than we are used to. Why? Because when you cast the spell side, it is almost always going to be when that spell is good. So there's no more WCS vs ACS vs BCS. To be as specific as possible, most cards are valued at:

    P(WCS) * V(WCS) + P(ACS) * V(ACS) + P(BCS) * V(BCS)

    Where P(x) is the probability of x and V(x) is the expected value of x. These MDFCs have a different equation:

    P(BCS) * V(BCS) + (1 - P(BCS)) * V(TapLand)

    Observer that V(TapLand) is almost always greater than V(WCS). That observation is what makes me believe these cards are all MUCH MUCH better than we're giving them credit. To me, this card is an absolute slam dunk. Same with the regrowth. Same with the elephant. Same with the removal spell. Hell, I'm even considering the 3cmc fling. Why? Because I believe that the probability that access to fling wins a game in a red deck is high enough (say 5-10%) to justify the inclusion of a tap-land. Fling is bad because P(WCS) is too high, and V(WCS) is literally close to zero. So including it in your deck leads to just a mulligan a great percentage of the time. Now it's never a mulligan.

    I chose to use fling because it's not one of these rares that has an effect you would actually consider cubing. I'm higher on these effects than WTWLF123 by his example because reducing cost by 1 yields 2cmc fling, and I am nowhere close to playing fling. But I hope my explanation explained why I think these cards are all pretty ridiculous.
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on [CUBE] [ZNR] Bloodchief's Thirst
    The inclusion here is probably just a function of curve. My cube has quite the high density of cheap aggressive creatures, so I'll try this out. But if your curves are a bit more chonky where the 1cmc mode isn't impactful often enough, then it's reasonable to pass.
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on [IKO][CUBE] Winota, Joiner of Forces
    Hey y'all, as I mentioned earlier I built a quick simulation to get numbers on Winota!! You can check out the thread and the code here.

    TL;DR

    Deck: 16 lands, 9 humans, 8 non-humans, 1 Winota, 6 other.

    Avg # hits when cast: 1.65
    Avg turn cast: 5
    Complete misses: 14%

    Edit: I have to say these numbers make me a lot more excited for the card!!
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on [IKO] [CUBE] Lurrus of the Dream-Den


    SLAM DUNK!!

    Unlike Lutri, you actually have to jump through hoops to get one of the most absurd cards possible. Furthermore, unlike Lutri, this card is a super solid playable in any creature midrange or aggro deck. So you don't need to hit Companion for it to be good enough. I think that adds up to a card that I'm stoked to include. Won't be too good like Lutri, but has an incredibly high ceiling and a reasonable floor!

    Edit: I missed restriction only cares about permanents. The restriction might be too easy to hit, and could certainly be too good. UGH.
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on [IKO][CUBE] Lutri, the Spellchaser
    Yeah I was saying it would get ETB draw a card. I would cube it in a heartbeat. And I wanted to show that it’s approximately 2.5 times better than that card via abstract napkin math lol. Sounds like we’re on the same page, wtwlf123
    Posted in: Cube Card and Archetype Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.