I'll wait for more replies before I address some of the other points, but I did want to talk about the artifact destruction a bit.
I suppose that to understand my mindset, I should put one of my biases out there: I don't like sideboarding, because usually sideboarding means putting in or taking out very narrow cards. I can understand why someone might want to side out Doom Blade. I don't find it appealing, however, to side Ronom Unicorn in and out.
To me, siding in Ronom Unicorn goes against the idea of trying to create a solid 40 card deck that has synergy within itself. You had a card in there that worked better with the other 39 cards you had, but you have to replace that more optimal card with a narrow card that'll give you an out if you happen to draw it when they've got a Leonin Scimitar out.
So to me, the question is, 1) given the limited number of powerful equipment that require answers (probably less than 6 in my 500+ cube), and 2) given the relative boringness of Bonesplitter, Leonin Scimitar, and Vulshok Morningstar (to me, anyway, since you're rarely going to need to put deep thought into whether to draft or include it in your 40) -- is it worth it to just cut out or reduce the number of those types of artifacts, and swap out the more narrow cards (Ronom, Nantuko Vigilante) for cards that are more interesting outside of the narrow condition of an artifact being on the table?
Maybe the answer to my question is already apparent due to my personal biases. But I propose this question because of the difference between pauper and normal cubes (the different in the quality of artifacts {and maybe enchantments?} between pauper and normal cubes is astounding!) means we might have to think about artifact removal in a pauper cube differently than we do a normal cube.
I guess I'll repost here, with some additions, since this might be the "appropriate" thread for pauper cube discussion.
Hi guys, just joined the forums, the only cards I have are the ones that I got for my pauper cube, which I based off Lanxal's cube initially. I've mostly only done Winstons with it, but I've been doing a lot of pruning and adding based on some of the discussions in this forum.
What I'm most interested in talking about are the different philosophies that a pauper cube can be built around, and whether those philosophies can be adequately supported in a pauper cube. For example, there has been a lot of discussion regarding blue aggro support in pauper cube. Can pauper cubes really support that archetype given the limited cards at their disposal, while not eviscerating archetypes like draw-go?
Another question worth thinking about: given the emphasis in pauper cube towards building "solid" decks, does the size of the cube (e.g. 360 v 720) cube matter more for pauper than for regular cubes? This question is provoked by one poster's difficulty in balancing cards of varying power levels (he says that having bonesplitter & leonin scimitar out allowed him to dominate games), which means that games are more luck-based.
Finally, thanks Lanxal for initiating all these projects that have really pushed the discussion on pauper cubing. I feel like it's almost as fun to follow the conversation as it is to play.
----------------
More food for thought -
How much artifact destruction should be put into the cube? My artifact section doesn't contain a whole lot of cards that need to be taken care of: Bonesplitter, Vulshok, Leonin Bola, and a couple of similar equipments are the main targets, creatures like Spire Golem or Steel Wall deserve artifact removal as well. There really are very few artifact creatures that demand removal, though, and beside equipment most of the artifacts I run are 1 time use items (a la executioner's capsule) or just mana fixing. Is it worth taking out overpowered equipment so that overall creature quality can be improved (by taking out cards like Gorilla Shaman, for example).
Given that pauper games are often more straight-forward than regular pauper games (I'm assuming), those of you who run smaller cubes, do you put cards on rotation so that you'll have variety, or do you just stick to a small set of tightly selected cards? When I read about people building 360 card cubes so that every card is used in every 8-man draft, I feel like playing the cube would get very repetitive after a few plays. Do you guys, based on your experience, feel this way? What is a good way to combat repetition?
Given that pauper cards are usually more straightforward than regular cube cards, what are some strategies you use to increase player decision-making? Do you focus on decision-making at the drafting stage? Or do you focus on decision-making during games? Do you prioritize cards like cyclers?
It's a nice large set of commons that is semi-filtered. Granted, there are many cards that don't really merit discussion (lots of elephants), but this could be a nice opportunity to discuss cards that aren't very common. I think this could be more interesting to most cubers than discussing whether Mulldrifter or Mana Leak are cubable in Pauper.
Hi guys, just joined the forums, the only cards I have are the ones that I got for my pauper cube, which I based off Lanxal's cube initially. I've mostly only done Winstons with it, but I've been doing a lot of pruning and adding based on some of the discussions in this forum.
What I'm most interested in talking about are the different philosophies that a pauper cube can be built around, and whether those philosophies can be adequately supported in a pauper cube. For example, there has been a lot of discussion regarding blue aggro support in pauper cube. Can pauper cubes really support that archetype given the limited cards at their disposal, while not eviscerating archetypes like draw-go?
Another question worth thinking about: given the emphasis in pauper cube towards building "solid" decks, does the size of the cube (e.g. 360 v 720) cube matter more for pauper than for regular cubes? This question is provoked by one poster's difficulty in balancing cards of varying power levels (he says that having bonesplitter & leonin scimitar out allowed him to dominate games), which means that games are more luck-based.
Finally, thanks Lanxal for initiating all these projects that have really pushed the discussion on pauper cubing. I feel like it's almost as fun to follow the conversation as it is to play.
Rush of Knowledge
Rhystic Study
Frozen Solid - not narcolepsy, but is cubeable nonetheless?
Apathy - worth the card?
I'll wait for more replies before I address some of the other points, but I did want to talk about the artifact destruction a bit.
I suppose that to understand my mindset, I should put one of my biases out there: I don't like sideboarding, because usually sideboarding means putting in or taking out very narrow cards. I can understand why someone might want to side out Doom Blade. I don't find it appealing, however, to side Ronom Unicorn in and out.
To me, siding in Ronom Unicorn goes against the idea of trying to create a solid 40 card deck that has synergy within itself. You had a card in there that worked better with the other 39 cards you had, but you have to replace that more optimal card with a narrow card that'll give you an out if you happen to draw it when they've got a Leonin Scimitar out.
So to me, the question is, 1) given the limited number of powerful equipment that require answers (probably less than 6 in my 500+ cube), and 2) given the relative boringness of Bonesplitter, Leonin Scimitar, and Vulshok Morningstar (to me, anyway, since you're rarely going to need to put deep thought into whether to draft or include it in your 40) -- is it worth it to just cut out or reduce the number of those types of artifacts, and swap out the more narrow cards (Ronom, Nantuko Vigilante) for cards that are more interesting outside of the narrow condition of an artifact being on the table?
Maybe the answer to my question is already apparent due to my personal biases. But I propose this question because of the difference between pauper and normal cubes (the different in the quality of artifacts {and maybe enchantments?} between pauper and normal cubes is astounding!) means we might have to think about artifact removal in a pauper cube differently than we do a normal cube.
Hi guys, just joined the forums, the only cards I have are the ones that I got for my pauper cube, which I based off Lanxal's cube initially. I've mostly only done Winstons with it, but I've been doing a lot of pruning and adding based on some of the discussions in this forum.
What I'm most interested in talking about are the different philosophies that a pauper cube can be built around, and whether those philosophies can be adequately supported in a pauper cube. For example, there has been a lot of discussion regarding blue aggro support in pauper cube. Can pauper cubes really support that archetype given the limited cards at their disposal, while not eviscerating archetypes like draw-go?
Another question worth thinking about: given the emphasis in pauper cube towards building "solid" decks, does the size of the cube (e.g. 360 v 720) cube matter more for pauper than for regular cubes? This question is provoked by one poster's difficulty in balancing cards of varying power levels (he says that having bonesplitter & leonin scimitar out allowed him to dominate games), which means that games are more luck-based.
Finally, thanks Lanxal for initiating all these projects that have really pushed the discussion on pauper cubing. I feel like it's almost as fun to follow the conversation as it is to play.
----------------
More food for thought -
How much artifact destruction should be put into the cube? My artifact section doesn't contain a whole lot of cards that need to be taken care of: Bonesplitter, Vulshok, Leonin Bola, and a couple of similar equipments are the main targets, creatures like Spire Golem or Steel Wall deserve artifact removal as well. There really are very few artifact creatures that demand removal, though, and beside equipment most of the artifacts I run are 1 time use items (a la executioner's capsule) or just mana fixing. Is it worth taking out overpowered equipment so that overall creature quality can be improved (by taking out cards like Gorilla Shaman, for example).
Given that pauper games are often more straight-forward than regular pauper games (I'm assuming), those of you who run smaller cubes, do you put cards on rotation so that you'll have variety, or do you just stick to a small set of tightly selected cards? When I read about people building 360 card cubes so that every card is used in every 8-man draft, I feel like playing the cube would get very repetitive after a few plays. Do you guys, based on your experience, feel this way? What is a good way to combat repetition?
Given that pauper cards are usually more straightforward than regular cube cards, what are some strategies you use to increase player decision-making? Do you focus on decision-making at the drafting stage? Or do you focus on decision-making during games? Do you prioritize cards like cyclers?
It's a nice large set of commons that is semi-filtered. Granted, there are many cards that don't really merit discussion (lots of elephants), but this could be a nice opportunity to discuss cards that aren't very common. I think this could be more interesting to most cubers than discussing whether Mulldrifter or Mana Leak are cubable in Pauper.
What I'm most interested in talking about are the different philosophies that a pauper cube can be built around, and whether those philosophies can be adequately supported in a pauper cube. For example, there has been a lot of discussion regarding blue aggro support in pauper cube. Can pauper cubes really support that archetype given the limited cards at their disposal, while not eviscerating archetypes like draw-go?
Another question worth thinking about: given the emphasis in pauper cube towards building "solid" decks, does the size of the cube (e.g. 360 v 720) cube matter more for pauper than for regular cubes? This question is provoked by one poster's difficulty in balancing cards of varying power levels (he says that having bonesplitter & leonin scimitar out allowed him to dominate games), which means that games are more luck-based.
Finally, thanks Lanxal for initiating all these projects that have really pushed the discussion on pauper cubing. I feel like it's almost as fun to follow the conversation as it is to play.