General Why not?
- Thread starter Jesse G
- Start date
I've been thinking it might be interesting if, in addition to basic lands, there were basic spells of each color that were usable by all players in a cube draft in the same way: things like Grizzly Bears, Divination, and Shock. This would fundamentally change both the drafting experience, and the way in which the cube should be designed; it would free up tons of cube slots and draft picks for fun, deck defining cards, allow for an increase in the number of supported archetypes, and give drafters more incentive to try and go all in on a particular plan, since less overall picks are needed to make a coherent deck.
On the other hand, there's also way less tension in the draft, since you can pretty much biff the entire thing and still construct a functioning mono-red deck entirely out of basics or whatever. Perhaps there could be a limit to the total number of 'basics' you can include in your deck?
I don't necessarily think this is a good idea, but i think the discussion is worth having. It seems to me that cubing lies somewhere along the spectrum from "True limited", where not even basic lands are provided, to "True constructed", where every card in the format is at your fingertips. I'm curious what happens when you move that slider a bit more towards constructed. If i had to guess, I would say the sweet spot is right where we have it now, but who's to say a drastically different cube design might want that slider in a different place?
One other stupid idea. I have a cube. My friend has a cube. They are of wildly different power levels, and they play very differently. We love to draft them both.... but i want to draft/play them together
... How??? Some kind of Two headed giant nonsense? (They have different sleeves as well, and we intend to keep it that way, so shuffling cards from both cubes together is sort of..... clunky, shall we say)
On the other hand, there's also way less tension in the draft, since you can pretty much biff the entire thing and still construct a functioning mono-red deck entirely out of basics or whatever. Perhaps there could be a limit to the total number of 'basics' you can include in your deck?
I don't necessarily think this is a good idea, but i think the discussion is worth having. It seems to me that cubing lies somewhere along the spectrum from "True limited", where not even basic lands are provided, to "True constructed", where every card in the format is at your fingertips. I'm curious what happens when you move that slider a bit more towards constructed. If i had to guess, I would say the sweet spot is right where we have it now, but who's to say a drastically different cube design might want that slider in a different place?
One other stupid idea. I have a cube. My friend has a cube. They are of wildly different power levels, and they play very differently. We love to draft them both.... but i want to draft/play them together
... How??? Some kind of Two headed giant nonsense? (They have different sleeves as well, and we intend to keep it that way, so shuffling cards from both cubes together is sort of..... clunky, shall we say)
One other stupid idea. I have a cube. My friend has a cube. They are of wildly different power levels, and they play very differently. We love to draft them both.... but i want to draft/play them together
I think I once sat down with a friend and we played Type 4 (infinite mana, no lands, one spell per turn, don't bother drafting) Two Headed Giant with my cube and my sphere (bad card cube). And it was probably tremendous fun.
Edit: Actually 2-Headed Giant doesn't sound too great. I guess the powered cube decks would just dominate the games and the other player on each team might be a little left out. But it could be that the decks are just as powerful, even if the cards are not. Worth trying! Why not!
Yeah, this is what I was thinking. The powerful cards would just dominate the game it'd we did something 2hg ish. Is there some way to alternate straw steps instead? So, like, draft a 20 card deck from each and then swap between drawing from each one.... sounds pretty weird.
Also what about bringing ante back in some way? I'm thinking, each game you ante a few random cards from each sideboard. It seems perfectly suited for Cubing where all the cards just get shuffled back together at the end anyway. Maybe the ante should go to the loser though... otherwise a win in game one gives you an even better chance in the following games.
Also what about bringing ante back in some way? I'm thinking, each game you ante a few random cards from each sideboard. It seems perfectly suited for Cubing where all the cards just get shuffled back together at the end anyway. Maybe the ante should go to the loser though... otherwise a win in game one gives you an even better chance in the following games.
This is a pretty interesting idea. The first thing that comes to mind is that a format somewhere in between normal limited and normal constructed should have a deck size in between the two. Maybe a fifty card minimum? The reason being that with 45 picks and roughly 23 spells in a regular draft, you're discarding a lot of your drafted pile already, and allowing access to even more spells from a common pool afterwards would exacerbate this problem further, while de-emphasizing the importance of the draft portion. Giving more room in players' decks for cards from both the draft and the common pool might allow both sides to breathe.
The more important consideration would be what kind of build arounds to offer your players, and whether or not to put a limit on them (two per deck? four?). Grizzly Bears isn't particularly interesting even in a core set draft, though Divination might be. You'd have to strike a very careful balance here, as giving all players access to these cards all the time could grow obnoxious quickly if they're too strong. At the same time, they might enable niche decks that don't stand a chance of coming together in a normal draft, especially quirky combo or shenanigans decks. Some people on this forum (and elsewhere) enjoy storm and mill, for example...
I've been thinking it might be interesting if, in addition to basic lands, there were basic spells of each color that were usable by all players in a cube draft in the same way: things like Grizzly Bears, Divination, and Shock. This would fundamentally change both the drafting experience, and the way in which the cube should be designed; it would free up tons of cube slots and draft picks for fun, deck defining cards, allow for an increase in the number of supported archetypes, and give drafters more incentive to try and go all in on a particular plan, since less overall picks are needed to make a coherent deck.
On the other hand, there's also way less tension in the draft, since you can pretty much biff the entire thing and still construct a functioning mono-red deck entirely out of basics or whatever. Perhaps there could be a limit to the total number of 'basics' you can include in your deck?
I don't necessarily think this is a good idea, but i think the discussion is worth having. It seems to me that cubing lies somewhere along the spectrum from "True limited", where not even basic lands are provided, to "True constructed", where every card in the format is at your fingertips. I'm curious what happens when you move that slider a bit more towards constructed. If i had to guess, I would say the sweet spot is right where we have it now, but who's to say a drastically different cube design might want that slider in a different place?
One other stupid idea. I have a cube. My friend has a cube. They are of wildly different power levels, and they play very differently. We love to draft them both.... but i want to draft/play them together
Uh, well, I know somebody who does something like this. Basically, there is a big box of weird narrow / lower power cards that he keeps to the size, and after the draft you can just dig through there to round out your deck. He gets a much bigger deck diversity because people will go deep on weird interactions that are supported by that random-ass box of cards.
Ooooh.. that's awesome. This sounds like the easiest way to implement something like what I was thinking. My idea was to have the extra basics be super broad, usable in almost any deck, like the basic lands, but I think I like this idea better. It's a lot like what Eric was saying, having access more niche cards to enable more weird decks. It's kind of reminding me of the utility land draft at this point... like maybe you have a second round of drafting with much narrower, or weaker cards, but you draft them in packages, squadron hawk style.
Yeah, for reference, the dude who does this basically just 1v1 drafts with a friend all the time, and they're both pretty well versed in the cube's contents. I wouldn't advise this if you play with a lot of less dedicated players.
CML
Contributor
CML
Contributor
bottom of http://www.xtremetrades.co.uk/article.php?newsNumber=151 . someone ping this dude and ask him for some specific card choices in the box?
He's emailed me before. He lurks the forums from time to time. The most interesting part of his design is how disconnected from the mainstream he is. Like, he writes his blog and all that jazz but it seems that nobody really comments on it, and he isn't super aware of what others are doing either. It's like watching a cuber that's been raised by wolves, and his ideas are super offbeat and fascinating. While at the same time probably not very refines. If you troll through his blog you will find crazy shit though, like a cube deck that plays Phyrexian Dreadnought and other bonkers ideas.
Why is the 23-17 land split such a hard and fast rule in cube, or even just limited in general? I've always found it very strange that Stormblood Berserker decks often run the exact same number of lands as Avenger of Zendikar decks.... I'm not saying its not correct, I've just never heard a compelling explanation for why 22-18 and 24-16 are so rare. I've actually taken to using 24-16 as a default; It started out of laziness, and rather than making one last agonizing cut i would just throw the deck together. But over time, I've come to believe our 6-scry 1 mulligan rule makes lower land counts more viable, as land deficient openers are punished less.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
I was unaware that the 23-17 land split was a hard and fast rule in cube. Is this "common" knowledge (of which I am blissfully ignorant) or a trend you've noticed?
Granted, my cube has a pretty aggressively low mana curve, but I build more 16 land decks then 17. 15 and 18 aren't unheard of.
Granted, my cube has a pretty aggressively low mana curve, but I build more 16 land decks then 17. 15 and 18 aren't unheard of.
Funny you should mention that. I read through almost this dude's entire blog probably six months ago when I got really frustrated with MTGS. He has really interesting ideas. I stole several of them in fact. I tend to steal people's ideas. Going to be honest here, my cube is like a kleptomaniac's mosaic of stolen ideas. Very little of it I came up with on my own (and by very little, I really mean pretty much nothing).
On a related note, I FULLY support creativity in cube and I love seeing all the offbeat things guys come up with (so I can proceed to steal them and make them my own). Running a mainstream cube by the numbers is great and it is very fun, but I think there is a lot more you can do with this format. It doesn't have to just be about running the best cards ever printed and power-maxing to kingdom come. That idea is really 2005 at this point.
I would say that 23/17 is a pretty common starting point for brand new Limited formats, before people learn the boundaries of the format and discover its archetypes. When new players come to draft with us, and ask for recommendations on how many lands versus spells to play, people also usually recommend 23/17.
As someone who plays aggro more often than not, I'm usually the one running 16 or even 15 lands, depending on how many useful 'spell lands' I'm packing. I'm in agreement that 17 is often too high for most aggro decks, because mana flood tends to be worse than mana screw when piloting fast decks.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
Well, I have heard myself telling people that 17 land is a pretty safe choice if you aren't sure, I just didn't realize it was "set in stone"
That is my default. 17 lands. If my curve is low, I'll go 16. If I'm running something really slow with minimal ramp, I may even go 18 (but those usually end up bad decks honestly).
If you run the math, 17 is a safe number in the vast vast majority of sealed limited formats. So much so that it has become semi set in stone.
That said, this is cube. Your cube could be running 50% one drops or have nothing good before CMC 4. Of course it's going to vary. If your cube looks anything like retail limited though, expect 17 to be the right choice the vast majority of the time. If your cube does not necessitate 17 lands, expect most new users of your cube to go 17 until they figure that out.
That said, this is cube. Your cube could be running 50% one drops or have nothing good before CMC 4. Of course it's going to vary. If your cube looks anything like retail limited though, expect 17 to be the right choice the vast majority of the time. If your cube does not necessitate 17 lands, expect most new users of your cube to go 17 until they figure that out.
CML
Contributor
That's the interesting thing -- conventional Cube curves look exactly like retail limited (tasteless pants bulge at 4), but on here the curves are much lower ... nevertheless, I often find myself running 17 lands, even with say "naya midrange with some pods and 3 dorks." They aren't all that close to being constructed-low and so 17 is usually OK even if constructed aggro would never run "25.5 mountains" or whatever
my typical algorithm is "run 1 more than people tell me to"
my typical algorithm is "run 1 more than people tell me to"
^^This^^
I hate flooding... I only run 17 if I'm trying to cast griselbrand or something, and I usually get tsk tsks from my, admittedly small, playgroup.. seriously though, I think the 6 scry 1 mull rule makes it ok, at least that's how I rationalize it
Yea, overall 17/40 is a common starting point in limited formats. I usually find that you want 17-18 lands to reliably hit 7+ mana.
And it's fairly easy to drop to 15 or 16 lands if you curve basically stops at 2-3.
Even though the number of lands does matter, I've found that most players don't take the next step to consider what ratio of colours you need to hit to actually play spells. So if your mana is shaky, you need to play more lands to compensate hitting the double colour requirements
And it's fairly easy to drop to 15 or 16 lands if you curve basically stops at 2-3.
Even though the number of lands does matter, I've found that most players don't take the next step to consider what ratio of colours you need to hit to actually play spells. So if your mana is shaky, you need to play more lands to compensate hitting the double colour requirements
CML
Contributor
you never want to draw 42.5% lands in a 17-land deck, always fewer, but the penalty for flood is lesser than the penalty for screw (even if screw often beats flood)