A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    If you're just trying to play stuff people hate, you'll end up with a pile of Strip Mines, Chalice of the Voids, and Bridge From Belows. Nobody will ever win, and everyone will be mad about it. All things in moderation.

    Grief cards have their place, as do archetype cards, but the environment needs to be built on the back of baseline playable cards, just like any draftable set should be. Pure build-around cards need to be rare. You can really have your cake and eat it too if you construct carefully. Make sure your goodstuff is also kinda synergistic and your synergy is also kinda goodstuff and you're golden.

    Slots are few and precious. Cut the ultra-specific build-around in favor of the more draftable card on the same theme. That doesn't mean you need to listen when people say "that's not playable because X, Y, and Z are staples and they're better." Those people may be right, but that doesn't mean whatever card is bad. Just don't play cards that have a bad floor and require very specific lines of play.

    Years ago, in the early days of my cube, I played Primalcrux, though my sister protested. I wanted somebody to be able to build monogreen someday and win! Someday somebody did build monogreen, and they didn't get Primalcrux. In fact, I realized that the deck didn't need it at all. Everything Primalcrux can do, that deck could do better. The only thing it had going for it was that it was super cool to play a 6xG card. Karametra's Acolyte was the card that made the deck, and that card is very playable outside of monogreen. We must cut the proverbial Primalcrux, and play the proverbial Karamatra's Acolyte.

    People might tell us that Acolyte is unplayable, but they're wrong. They're wrong because Acolyte has a decent floor and a high ceiling. It's a synergistic card that promotes turbo-ramp, and works wonders with untappers while synergizing generically with all manner of good green cards. It may not be playable in tier 1 cubes (I don't really know), but it's a great card. But Primalcrux and cards like it really are harmful to the environment. Not because they can't ever work, but because they seldom do.

    If you are playing a cube that actually makes Bridge from Below work, it's almost certainly a gimmick cube. Pawn of Ulamog will almost always play better. I theorycrafted an all-black cube that plays Bridge, and I think it really works there, but I doubt I'll really ever build that cube. I'd never get anybody to draft it. It's not a bad thing to build a gimmick cube, but you need a lot of friends who are open to really wacky games of Magic. That's a social requirement most of us probably can't fill.


    It's not really about playing degenerate, unfun cards and griefing Magic players. It's about forcing them to play games of fun, fair interactive Magic. When a Magic player opens a pack with Kjeldoran Skycaptain and One with Nothing and a bunch of pushed Arcane cards, it's like sprinkling holy water on a vampire.

    The last time I played my cube, I Winston drafted with a friend I haven't seen in a while. I drafted a deck with an Arcane Dampen Thought sub-theme. The board was at parity a few turns in, and I played my first spliced Dampen Thought and milled a Bridge From Below into my opponent's graveyard and gave my opponent 4 zombies. I tried to hold on by splicing Candle's Glow a bunch of times but I couldn't.

    You don't really get games like that in other cubes which are just good stuff piles.

    By the way, I did meet up with someone from the mtgcube Subreddit who had a mono-black cube a few times. It was pretty cool actually, you should try it out.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    Quote from FunkyDragon »
    Anything that Magic players hate is good for the game by definition
    I'm of the opinion that anything that Magic players hate is good for the game
    Anything that Magic players hate is good for the game.
    Anything that Magic players hate is good for the game
    Repeating this over and over in every thread you post in isn't going to make it true. And saying "by definition" doesn't add any truth, authority, or dictionary reference to your statement.




    If you cared about substance you would have addressed my whole post instead of just focusing on the style of the first sentence of it like a sophist.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    Anything that Magic players hate is good for the game by definition, so the more 'feel bads' you have in your cube, the better designed your cube is.

    What I mean by this is that if people have to actually work for synergies and earn neat combos as opposed to drafting EZmode cards and goodstuff piles, you're doing things right.

    Restrictions breed creativity and you're going to have more interesting games when you don't give everyone unfettered access to *all* of the toys. If people have to work to get Bridge From Below into their graveyard or have to make voltrons out of non-hexproof creatures you'll end up with more fun stories than, "My good stuff pile took my opponent's slightly worse goodstuf pile to ValuTown faster."
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    What big mana creatures do people run in their cubes? Like 7 mana or greater? I run very few cheat cards, so I'm looking to see what people run. I just put worldspine wurm into my cube, seems exciting to fairly ramp to 11 mana and play some ****huge monster.

    Cards that don't end up in any deck outside of the specific deck they are meant for are parasitic. Exhume is clearly such a card and Radiant, Archangel is also such a card, though to a slightly lesser degree as it at least has a small chance to end up in a random midrange and/or token deck as card #23.

    You can only have so much removal. If you play cards that are worse just to make Mesa Enchantress work you already start to change your cube design just to make that one card work. And even if you do that replacing Swords and Path with Pacifism effects won't nearly be enough, you're bound to run a lot more enchantments than a typical cube would to make a card like Enchantress work.

    Ethereal Armor without other enchantments is not good enough, not even close. The problem is not that it would be unplayable garbage if it ended up in a deck, the problem is that in a typical cube it simply would never end up in a deck because without proper support it's way worse than at least 23 other cards a drafter could pick from a typical cube draft.

    This generally seems to be the problem with your approach. Of course you can lower your whole cube power level so much that Ethereal Armor on its own would be a very decent card that ends up in a deck, but I don't think that's what we talk about here. You can only have 23 nonland cards in your deck and you draft 45 cards, so the quality of a card is determined by the quality of the other cards in the cube.

    If a card always ends up on spot #24+ when you build your deck it doesn't matter that it's not 'unplayable garbage'. All that matters is that it's useless in the context of that specific cube as it simply never gets played.





    I was going to continue this discussion , but I won't ever convince you of my side of the argument and you probably won't convince me of your side. So instead of getting banned again for daring to have an opinion, I'll say this: It's your cube, if you're uncomfortable running fair exhume or fair ethereal armor or pacifisms, that's fine and you're allowed to build your cube in any way that you want.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)


    Exhume and Radiant Archangel aren't parasitic cards, they're just good/decent cards in any deck with the potential to get nuts with specific cards.

    Pacifisms and auras like Ethereal Armor or Hyena Umbra are always good. You can pile those into white and green and there you go.


    Exhume is pretty much exclusively playable in ub reanimator and maybe somtimes in gb graveyard. In any other deck the chance that it does nothing or is even actively bad for you is far too high.

    Radiant, Archangel is slightly less parasitic, but in Peasant it's simply not good enough outside of a dedicated uw skies deck. Serra Angel is mediocre at best in peasant so no one right in their mind would draft Radiant over other cards in a deck with just 4-5 other fliers unless he was absolutely desperate for card #23, which doesn't really happen very often in cube.

    If you start to put in all kind of pacifisms effects over other, better removal spells and auras (that are parasitic on their own, like Ethereal Armor) in numbers that simply aren't needed for non-enchantment decks then you do exactly what I say. You add cards that are normally not good enough and that have no/hardly any place outside of the enchantment deck just to make that one parasitic card more playable.


    Decent cards that get better with specific cards aren't parasitic.

    Mesa Enchantress and something like Goblin Caves is parasitic. Their floor is that they're useless. The floor of a 5 mana 3/3 flier is that you paid an extra mana for Phantom Monster, that doesn't make the card unplayable. Exhume is still a decent card, you just can't play it when your opponent has something devastating in their graveyard. They probably won't.

    How are pacifisms not good? Is this that Magic player thing where everything short of Swords to Plowshares is, "literally unplayable garbage I'd never draft your cube again, ugh"?

    And Ethereal armor for +1/+1 or 2 seems fine. It's a decent card that gets better with synergies. I don't see the problem, that's just good cube design.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    The problem with a card like Mesa Enchantress is not that it's parasitic, it's that you need other parasitic cards to support it. How many enchantments in white does the typical cube have? My 420 cube has 11 (out of 66 total white cards). And that's by far the largest amount out of all colors. Now imagine that most of these enchantments are universally playable (and thus get drafted by almost anyone drafting white), what do you end up with if you draft an enchantment deck?

    Mesa Enchantress is decent if you draw 2 cards from it and it's only good if you draw 3+ cards. How many enchantments do you need in your deck to do that (again, reliably)? That's not going to happen unless you deliberately add enchantment cards that aren't good enough outside of enchantment.dec.

    I don't mind a few cards that are parasitic if they work well enough in a deck you can reasonably draft with cards that work in many different decks (such as Exhume, Favorable Winds or Radiant, Archangel), but Mesa Enchantress is certainly not one of them.


    Exhume and Radiant Archangel aren't parasitic cards, they're just good/decent cards in any deck with the potential to get nuts with specific cards.

    Pacifisms and auras like Ethereal Armor or Hyena Umbra are always good. You can pile those into white and green and there you go.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on Package Deal Cards
    Quote from Resarox »
    From thinking about it for a short time, I come to think that the main reason for doing this would be to increase consistency within archetypes that are served by the packages you create. While in and of itself not a bad idea, it collides with my personal goal that my cube is trying to achieve: Something different everytime without any form of hourlong brewing (except building the cube itself and thinking about changes almost daily :P).

    Adopting package creation leads cube to more constructed-stylish outcomes. The basic idea of having packages is: "If you want one of this card, you will want all of them", which is the opposite of unexpected deck-composition that I so love about cube. I mean, I could make packages "Stoneforge Mystic, Umezawas Jitte, Recruiter of the Guard", or "Crucible of World, Life from the Loam, Ramunap Excavator", and while I'm sure I would extremely enjoy those packages, I would end up playing a smaller variety of decks over the long run, because I either assemble all the pieces or none. This last part is hinting at the more constructed-style gameplay you'll get. You either have Deck A because you managed to get package A, or you have Deck B because you got package B and so on.

    I'm sketching it in a binary way and I know it's exaggerated, but without very in-depth analysis of the idea I wouldn't know where to stop with the package-density and the package-composition. I know for sure however that it leads into constructed-terrain, and that is not a place I want to be at, ever.

    All in all, I don't see this idea being good for me as a permanent change of my Cube-environment. It might be nice however to once in a while allow for some more streamlined drafting, if there were some packages and every player can choose exactly one and build a very specific deck with it and the rest of the cards they drafted.


    You and I have different concepts of package deals. I have package deals in my cube in order to boost otherwise undraftable or niche cards. Maybe out of my zero mana artifacts package deal, you play ornithopter and fountain of youth, and then if your opponent has graveyard synergies you board in Tormod's Crypt.

    Putting Posts or Tron in the draft environment would require a lot of slots and require the stars to align in order to get enough pieces to assemble Tron. Package deals make that easier.

    Artifact lands would be fine outside of a package deal, I just don't want to spend 6 slots on them or require a drafter to waste 6 picks just because they have a single Frogmite in their deck.

    Your concept of using package deals for already powerful synergies is interesting.
    Posted in: The Cube Forum
  • posted a message on Package Deal Cards
    After some discussion about house ruling Squadron Hawks, I decided to make custom Package Deal cards for my cube. When you draft one, you can cash them in during deck construction for the cards listed on them.

    One has all 6 artifact lands.

    One has Ornithopther, Phyrexian Walker, Shield Sphere, Tormod's Crypt, Bone Saw, and Fountain of Youth.

    One is 3 copies of each Tron land, and Glasses of Urza and Urza's Chalice because why not?

    One is 6post. 3 copies of Glimmerpost, 3 copies of Cloudpost.

    These have all turned out to be reasonable. People freak out about them not being in the spirit of drafting or whatever, but they're just fine. Tron isn't even that good, and on average you only see half of 6 post.

    It's something that I recommend. Thoughts?
    Posted in: The Cube Forum
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    I don't think something like enchantment tribal is parasitic. Pacifisms are already good, so you're not really going out of your way to draft parasitic cards by drafting as many Pacifisms as you can.

    Sure, cards like Mesa Enchantress are parasitic, but not every card needs to be generic good stuff, some slots can be devoted to parasitic payoff cards.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    Thanks for the card ideas, I'll look deeper into them. Most of my cards are already set but I've found a few that I'll shove in, like the 2 mana 0/5 that gains you a life every turn.

    Is there any real payoff for playing an enchantment theme? The cube I'm building is not tier 1 by any means.

    I've noticed that it would be really easy to add an enchantment theme just by playing cartouches and trials (which are all pretty decent and form a nice little theme themselves) alongside some Seals (Seal of Doom, Seal of Cleansing, Seal of Primordium, and Seal of Fire) and my favorite enchantment support card, Flickering Ward. Rancor for good measure, plus some good white enchantment based removal.

    All the pieces are there, and it wouldn't really tax the environment, since a lot of these cards fill crucial roles. But is there any reason to use them? Satyr Enchanter exists, but beyond that, it looks like we're left with low quality stuff like Forgeborn Oreads and Blightcaster. Sure you can get going with Blightcaster + Flickering Ward, but I'm not just trying to set up two card combos. None of the support seems playable outside of the enchantment theme, which makes it parasitic, which is a problem.


    Yavimaya Enchantress
    Aura Gnarlid
    Ethereal Armor
    Heliod's Pilgrim
    There is also a 5 mana 2/5 version of Heliod's Pilgrim, forgot what it's called.

    As an aside, there are payoffs at rare if you're willing. Mesa Enchantress and Serra's Sanctum.

    I made all of white's removal enchantment based in my cube.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on [[Peasant]] The Peasant Cube Discussion Thread (C/U/)
    What are some staple uncommons (or rares I suppose)? I dropped Pauper rarity for my cube, now I just play whatever.

    What are some cards like Lightning Helix and Control Magic that are kind of "vanilla" staple uncommons?
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on Why Pauper/Peasant?
    You can absolutely create a cube that plays like a peasant or even pauper cube while using rares and mythics. But it would be much harder to balance since almost no one has a cube like that and you'd have to test all the cards yourself. And you have no one to talk to and discuss with. To me that's part of the fun.


    I have a cube like that, and I'm a vocal part of the cube community here on MTGS, but I will say that you are right. I don't really belong in the main cube forum, and I don't really belong on the pauper/peasant side either. My voice is always a voice from the corner. But I do keep talking.

    My cube is glorious and I love it. It's a massive, low power, semi-budget cube that excludes cards that are overpowered for no reason, are unfun, or are absurdly expensive (even if I own them). Thus things like my Karn Liberated sit out on all three counts.

    The power level means that anything that was really good in its limited environment can usually cross over and do good work in my cube, and the size means that it's okay for some weaker nostalgia cards to stay put. I'm still playing Bösium Strip, and it still works in some decks. With a cube that big, the main factor for any card is working in a number of different kinds of decks, especially different archetypes. (Okay, Bösium Strip doesn't pass that test, but I did say it was a weaker nostalgia card.)

    It also helps that I co-manage the cube with my sister. I'm plugged into the community, so I know the cards that everybody says are great-- but she isn't plugged in, so her evaluations are more organic. That push-and-pull is good for producing a dynamic cube environment (although I just don't understand why she won't let me cut Foul Imp).

    I'm not a rich person, and I can't just order expensive cards like Prismatic Vista because I want them. Everyone in the main cube forum just assumes that anybody can afford any given card. I understand why they do that: it helps make unbiased evaluations. Still, it leaves people like me, and I assume many others in the dust.

    I highly recommend building a cube out of whatever cards you have lying around (rares and mythics included). You can then start to preen from there. It has produced a truly lush and unique environment for us over time, and I enjoy it much more than the traditional cubes I've played. If anybody is ever interested in talking about a low-power list, I'm always happy to compare notes. I have a lot of opinions, and a lot of card suggestions. Army Ants!

    --------------

    I never considered building peasant. Why would I impose such a random stricture? But now that I'm looking to build a second cube, I'm reconsidering.

    I am moving to the UK for a two year graduate program, and I can't take my 1800 card cube with me. I'll be leaving it with my sister. As such, I want to build something small enough and cheap enough that I can easily bring it. I have no interest in the artificial requirement to exclude all rares and mythics, but I don't want to take any cards that I would be unhappy to see destroyed. Thus I can really see the appeal of a C/U cube. I don't want to buy anything at all for the new cube (except maybe a full cycle of trilands), and the chaff rares that I have lying around are really a random array. I see myself playing almost all commons and uncommons, and the archives here are a really useful resource.

    In the end, the true appeal of peasant/pauper is that it is established and played while remaining dirt cheap. I don't see why anybody would build a peasant cube and put an overpriced, overpowered card like Mana Drain in, but I guess people do that. I also never saw the point of putting an auto-take card like Ancestral Recall in any cube, but people love it, so go figure.

    Dirt cheap + strong existing community are compelling reasons. Still, I recommend the low-power, rares-included model to anyone. The only drawback is the lack of meaningful discussion. And... well I'm here!

    ------------

    Quote from FunkyDragon »

    You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.


    Moving back to actual Peasant, this is an interesting point. Are there any wraths you could see downgrading for something like a Masters set? Maybe something like Hour of Devastation without any of the extra text? It still feels rare though. Maybe 3RR for 4 damage. Maybe a slow rolling wrath like a saga could work at uncommon. What about a downgrade for Planar Collapse (or a functional reprint without regeneration text)? Probably not even good enough for peasant. I could see a Fall of the Thran style temporary wrath working at uncommon.

    Forced March might be just at the sweet spot for power level. It could take the Infest slot in a Modern Horizons limited environment. But triple black at uncommon...


    We share cube philosophies. Can you link me to your cube? Mine is in my signature. I can't view signatures on my Windows Phone. I want to trade some drafts over cubetutor.

    But yeah, I definitely agree. When I put Genju of the Realm and Child of Alara into my otherwise Pauper cube people freaked out. They turned out to be fine.

    A lot of cards scale with power level and/or are symmetrical so I don't really see a problem with say, including Pox in a cube alongside Benalish Hero and Kjeldoran Skycaptain.

    As far as expensive cards go, there are always counterfeit cards or printing out proxies. You don't have to pay $200 for Shahrazad if you don't want to.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on Why Pauper/Peasant?
    Quote from FunkyDragon »
    Quote from FunkyDragon »
    Ghostfire is basically the same card as Lightning Bolt.
    And Magic: The Gathering is basically Uno. Or Connect Four. I can never remember which.

    I seem to recall someone accusing others of being incapable of nuance.
    After playing Magic for a year, I've learned that Magic players are incapable of nuance. A card is either a, "good card" or, "unplayable trash" with no in between.
    A nuanced analysis would never say that Ghostfire and Lightning Bolt are basically the same card. Similar in function, sure, but the difference between holding up one mana and three is pretty huge - often that's the difference between casting only one spell or two. Do you consider this type of stubborn, sweeping over-generalization to be a nuanced grasp of MTG?



    You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.

    But it's not worth breaking rarity for me personally because I use the rarity restriction as a structural barrier - it keeps me from losing control. If I made an exception, it could lead to other exceptions, and with each one, the rule loses more and more meaning until I find that I'm just a weird, underpowered mish-mash of a cube.
    The difference between holding up 1 mana and 3 is huge in constructed Pauper.

    In limited Pauper not so much. By the time there is a creature you want to remove with it you'll have 3 mana.
    But will you be able to play your removal and drop a threat of your own? Because that's what makes one mana so much more flexible than three. If I have Lightning Bolt and a two-drop, I can cast both of them for the same cost as just Ghostfire. In one situation, I have an advantage; in the other, I've negated one turn for each of us and kept us at parity.
    And this is true for both constructed and limited.


    Sure, but that won't matter for one of two reasons:

    1.) The board stalls and a game of fun, fair, interactive Magic begins and all you got was an extra swing in. Eh. A turn later your opponent puts a 1/3 into play and that was that.

    Or:

    2.) Someone slams down some obnoxious card like Pestilence or Mulldrifter or blows you out with Prismatic Strands and it doesn't matter that you paid 1 mana for bolt instead of 3.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on Why Pauper/Peasant?
    Quote from FunkyDragon »
    Ghostfire is basically the same card as Lightning Bolt.
    And Magic: The Gathering is basically Uno. Or Connect Four. I can never remember which.

    I seem to recall someone accusing others of being incapable of nuance.
    After playing Magic for a year, I've learned that Magic players are incapable of nuance. A card is either a, "good card" or, "unplayable trash" with no in between.
    A nuanced analysis would never say that Ghostfire and Lightning Bolt are basically the same card. Similar in function, sure, but the difference between holding up one mana and three is pretty huge - often that's the difference between casting only one spell or two. Do you consider this type of stubborn, sweeping over-generalization to be a nuanced grasp of MTG?



    You are right, however, about a lack of viable wraths at common and even uncommon. That is one thing I wouldn't mind getting a couple of. Without wraths, players can vomit out creatures and over-commit to the board with near impunity; with wraths, they would have to play more strategically.

    But it's not worth breaking rarity for me personally because I use the rarity restriction as a structural barrier - it keeps me from losing control. If I made an exception, it could lead to other exceptions, and with each one, the rule loses more and more meaning until I find that I'm just a weird, underpowered mish-mash of a cube.


    The difference between holding up 1 mana and 3 is huge in constructed Pauper.

    In limited Pauper not so much. By the time there is a creature you want to remove with it you'll have 3 mana.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • posted a message on Why Pauper/Peasant?
    Quote from Leelue »
    Well, in my BadCardsCube I still run wrath effects, they just cost 6 or 7. I'm sure that our format could handle something like Fated Retribution if it can handle sulfurous blast.


    I mean, those cards are fine.

    I've seen people raise a fuss over cards costing a mana or two more than other, better options. Yeah, there are better options, but I'd still pay 5 mana for Armageddon, or 3 for Rancor, or whatever.

    Ghostfire is basically the same card as Lightning Bolt. Same with those wraths you listed.
    Posted in: Pauper & Peasant Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.