I'm Going Gaga for Grid Drafting

Updated 2021.07.16 - update to approach & methodology

For those who haven't read Jason's CFB article on 4c grid, I suggest doing so prior to continuing on: http://www.channelfireball.com/home/grid-tenchester-and-cutting-a-color-from-the-cube/

Why am I obsessed with grid drafting (beyond it being insanely fun)? One, as Grillo postulated (assumedly) "[that it is most likely the best conventional draft simulator]", it is a one-versus-one Limited format where decks can come out looking like beautifully constructed draft decks. Two, the open information during drafting allows for a Constructed-metagame-approach to deck building (where sideboard cards may be maindecked or "name a card" abilities are useful from Turn 1 onward); I take a photo/screenshot of my opponents' pool prior to deck building to refer to and limit the necessity for memory during play. Three, given the correct exposure, I firmly believe grid drafting (or some variant of head-to-head drafting) could be a popular way to play with enjoyable cards that don't find home in competitive Constructed, Commander or traditional Cube Limited.

(The second and third posts link my active and retired grid populations.)

Background (a.k.a. Useless Fluff)

A few years ago, I tried to capture the excitement of my youth in a Solomon/Winston (two head-to-head drafting formats) designed "Cube" paying homage to IPA limited, but it never came together to really create an exciting gaming experience. So, I dissembled the disappointment, moved away from head-to-head drafting and starting chasing fantasy set design (similar to "set cubes").

By then, I'd read some of Jason's CFB articles and ended up here. Some of y'all took the initiative to get together a MTGO collection, and I got my first taste of grid drafting with @safra 's Sharzad (v.Around.BFZ.And.OGW.I.Guess), minus one color via Forum Games. It was everything I wanted in my one-versus-one Limited Magic. I even started down the path of distilling a Sharzad card population built specifically for grid drafting without a color, but beyond the cursory sketch, I abandoned the project.

Shortly after, a friend visited me and I assembled some sloppy grids from the my two Fantasy Set Cubes for us to draft and game. The more complicated Fantasy Set Cube grids were a trainwreck, but two of them from an OG-Ravnica-themed set of mostly commons and uncommons produced many fantastic games. We often played best of 7 or 9 games after drafting a pool. That weekend was enough to set me on the path to *really* think about what a cube constructed as self-contained grid drafting card pool would entail.

Designing for Head-to-Head Drafting: A Guide to Building a Grid (Cube)

Grid has felt like an ideal environment to cram parasitic (and/or healthy) themes down throats, like one might find in a retail Limited set or with Constructed decks. The format also seems ideal to create really weird metagames- the sort kitchen-deck battles of which many MTG players may be fond. There is an opportunity to provide game agency to both players and a variety of cards (but if the grid experience fails, only two individuals are impacted, and *hopefully* not past the point where they would glean some sort of enjoyment from the experience).

My approach for a while was to design either (1) variations of existing draft formats or (2) try to emulate some weird Extended or Standard metagame from a decade ago. Recently, I've enjoyed curating strange cube-like environments (peasant or lower power) through taking the core-set-synergy approach focusing on stringing a few cards interactions together as micro-archetypes rather than supporting 15 or so cards in an overtly macro-archetype.

When working on a grid, there is only one rule that I won't break: design the card population for primarily grid drafting. This is the most obvious rule (as grid drafting and three-packs-of-15, left-right-left drafting are quite different deck-building mechanisms) and the most important rule as it drastically shapes how the card population is constructed. It's my assumption that grid drafting sets a more restrictive environment from a design point of view and any other styles of drafting will be enjoyable if the card population is designed from solely the intention to be drafted in grids. (This assumption hasn't really been tested at all... lol.)

Grid drafting mechanics are a *lot* different than traditional cube, and the numbers of effect/card types and spells at particular mana costs should be considered under the unique implications of grid drafting.
  • Each player gets 50% "first-to-second" picks and 50% "second-to-third" picks.
  • Each card selected when picking first cannot be drafted by an opponent; cards not selected by a player in a grid are publicly known to be out of the possibility for future selection.
  • The opponent's total selected card pool is public knowledge (so as mentioned prior, cards like Meddling Mage and Cabal Therapy or sideboard cards have a lot more play than in normal cube).

General Attributes - Original Post https://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/im-going-gaga-for-grid-drafting.1522/post-65153

So what does building a healthy format around 14-18 "first", "second" ...and "third" picks really look like? I am by no means near the magic formulae for grids but have learned a few lessons about which attribute of a population really makes the format tick: the power band.

The majority of the population should be built within a tight power band, with some allowance for variation above and below the mean card (but not dramatically so). This is to fight against most 3x3 grids having "clear first picks" and to promote synergy-based card selection as means over overcoming the individual card power band.

As a grid designer, I really want to converge on a draft environment where players start by picking cards that are powerful in a vacuum or are exciting synergy enablers and then transition to picking cards to fill out their deck (rather than always slam the "strictly best" cards in each 3x3 and end up playing games that feel as though they came from super-sealed). The method of card selection in grid *really* punishes cards that are not in the higher power tiers given the population when there are dramatic outliers to take in their stead; cards that are not up to snuff will almost never be picked on purpose (and only end up available for deck building if a better pick was available in the same row or column). In conventional drafting, due to the nature of packs and picks, the lower-tier cards at least often end up in a drafter's pile of cards available for deck building when card selection has ceased (given their color(s) align with that of the drafter), but in grid drafting, they are simply discarded.

All of the following musings are in relation to the power band:

Density of effects (and their costs). This won't be a surprise to anyone, but trimming down the number of cards that were "just good" in favor for increasing the density of certain archetype-support cards (more token-makers in colors supporting the strategy, more 2-mana-value creatures to enable board presence for combat steps, etc.) was the first step to enabling more viable deck types during gameplay. Then, reducing the most powerful/efficient removal/disruption spells in quantity gave room to assemble interactions. After these changes, two-color synergy decks were proving viable against the 3-4c "goodstuff" monstrosities (and bouncelands or shocklands were going unpicked in favor of picking up synergy components).

I assume there is a formulaic approach to finding the correct densities of disruptive/synergy interaction along with the number of cards required at different mana/color costs *and* the lands available to pay for color requirements along different desired levels of power. I haven't worked through it for my different active grids (but it's on my wish list of mind-numbing hobby tasks to investigate). I also assume this all runs parallel to the "asfan" or Pack Size conversations (but I, ignorantly, also haven't delved into that topic).

Quantity versus quality. One tricky part was finding an average card power level such that the opportunity cost (opponent can take the powerful cards) of taking "less powerful" cards when choosing first isn't too high. Initially, one of my early grids seemed to favor 2-for-1 goodstuff piles with cards like Enlisted Wurm, Auratouched Mage and Compulsive Research dictating games' outcomes. During the actual card selection process, the slower pace of games led both players to selecting cards that provided card advantage regardless of color just so the opposing player wouldn't get too far ahead in the 2-for-1 slugout. Neither deck focused on synergies with both decks aiming to glean advantages of opportunity from the synergies here and there, should they arise during game play.

Most cards should naturally fit into multiple deck archetypes, especially if they are on the lower end of the power band (which should makeup a larger percentage of the population). This is to add incentive to picking a slightly less powerful card in tandem with an additional less powerful card or a card the opponent could play. Lands often will fall into this paradigm, but lower-tier removal and replaceable creatures or smoothing effects should as well.

High numbers of playables. Given the way picks in grid occur, a tight power band should lead to a *large* amount of playables for each drafter. This abundance of playables, coupled with the one-versus-one nature of the format should lead to hate-drafting as a strategy for some number of first-pick packs (most likely, during the mid-to-latter half of the grid). As players play "cat and mouse" to lay claim to particular colors or strategies, they should find speculative picks valuable in the early-to-middle portion of the draft.

With speculative and hate picks leading to a nonlinear pool of selected cards, players may find themselves able to support different archetypes than anticipated (especially within the colors selected) as pick selection progresses. With proper densities and power band maintained, the initial picks during drafting should never pigeonhole a player into a color or strategy, but instead give them the option to invest more if the opportunities arise. At the end of the draft, it shouldn't be uncommon for a multitude of different archetypes to be viable decks for a player (even if only two colors were drafted heavily); restrictive mana costs, interactive spells and curve considerations should be weighed against expected opposition to create some questions for the deck builder to address with their build (and possibly readdress in sideboarding).

Tricks to Manage the Power Band

With the power band firmly in mind, a few specific tactics (that many use in existing cube design) will assist tuning the card population and draft/play experiences:

Draft only a subset of the 162/180/etc total cards. After some 144 card populations were drafted in their entirety, card populations were increased to 162 cards (multiples of 18) where only 144 cards were meant to be drafted at a time. This was in direct response to players with familiarity drafting with 100 percent certainty that a particular card or cards will show up in any given draft (and remove some preplanning around cards that are available in multiples).

Support less colors. The removal of a color from the grid population seemed so radical once upon a time and yet is simple and elegant. I haven't tried to make a 2-player grid with all 5 colors yet (and may not), but for now, the 4-color grid is one of my steadfast grid blueprints. As Jason alluded to in his article, removing a color (or colors) makes the average card more impactful for each player (and creates more decision points, thus increasing replayability). I could also see a high number of colorless cards achieving a similar state.

Color balance and combination support. In the vein of making the average card more impactful on each players' decisions, color-pair support can be reduced (for example, to less than the six pairs a 4-color Magic normally supports). Additionally, I've found color imbalance to be an interesting knob to turn in the hopes of making the average card more relevant; if one color or pair/cluster is too impactful in game play, shift some of its quantity in the population to a less impactful color (or pair/cluster).

Multiples are encouraged. To support the thematic approach of retail Limited or yesteryear's Constructed formats, I've taken to liberally including multiples (up to 4 copies!) in most of my grids. Though, cube-inspired grids that strictly adhere to singleton are also fun (and have been a bit harder for me to confidently design).

The advantage of a multiple-copy approach is really helpful in governing card interactions at certain densities of effect (as mentioned in the power band discussion prior). Beyond synergy pairs/clusters, multiples will support disruptive interactions between both players. For example, red in a grid may have instant speed interaction at 2R mana for artifacts or 2-toughness-or-less creatures (Molten Blast) or exiling sorcery interaction at 2RR mana for 5-toughness-or-less creatures (Puncturing Blast); the red decks' opponents will be able to parse out possible interactions more easily given the limited options. In a singleton environment, a similar approach can be taken by finding several cards that are similar in interaction in a color (or color pair/cluster) over two consecutive mana values or consecutive values for determining affected targets/etc.

Velocity of gameplay. Through managing density (and the cost) of effects, the pace of games can be managed to be quicker or slower. Resources can be configured more abundant (to create a constant or accelerated velocity) or scarce (that may create an inconsistent and/or decreasing velocity after a certain point). (I typically enjoy a slower, consistent velocity that leads to 7-or-more-turn games.)

Archive of older versions:

Original Post said:
I've meant to write on the topic of grid drafting for a while, as it's become quite a personal obsession, but laziness has prevailed. Until. Now. Well, until some future date, when I make it home for more than 2 nights and 1.5 days. But as a teaser (and to solicit grid ideas), I'm throwing up (to be interpreted as vomiting up) this shitpost!

(For those who haven't read Jason's CFB article on 4c grid, I suggest doing so prior to continuing on.) http://www.channelfireball.com/home/grid-tenchester-and-cutting-a-color-from-the-cube/

Why am I obsessed with grid drafting, beyond it being insanely fun? One, it is a one-versus-one Limited format where decks can come out looking like beautifully preconstructed duel decks. Two, given the correct exposure, I firmly believe grid drafting could be a self-contained product offering, similar to 'MTG as a board game'. (Imagine ~250 cards/tokens at a 35-40 USD price point.)

(I will use the second and third posts to link my active and retired grid populations, I guess.)

Background

Back during the turn of the century, Wizards (and their distros) would sell cases and boxes to individuals with a retailer license. After some begging and ad-hoc business proposals, I convinced one of my parents to take me to the capitol to acquire one of these licenses and went down the questionable road of buying product and selling singles on eBay. This led me to having a lot of commons that were essentially useless… until I learned about Solomon drafting (or until Daze became worth a few dollars). Solomon with 90 random Invasion block commons became an easy favorite format for a few months.

A few years ago, I tried to capture the excitement of my youth in a Solomon/Winston stack paying homage to IPA limited, but it never came together to really create an exciting gaming experience. So, I dissembled the disappointment and starting chasing fantasy set design.


By then, I'd read some of Jason's CFB articles and ended up here. Some of y'all took the initiative to get together a MTGO collection, and I got my first taste of grid drafting with safra's Sharzad (v.Around.BFZ.And.OGW.I.Guess), minus one color. It was everything I wanted in my one-versus-one Limited Magic. I even started down the path of distilling a card population built specifically for grid drafting without a color, but beyond the cursory sketch, I abandoned the project.

Then, in May, an MTG friend visited me, and I had the urge to get some grids together from my fantasy sets so we could play without begging others to join us. The grid populations were pretty sloppily assembled, but two of them from an OG-Ravnica-themed set produced many fantastic games. (The 5 grids from my first fantasy set produced pretty mediocre games, though, as I pretty much just got annihilated and out-drafted.) That weekend was enough to set me on the path to *really* think about what I was doing when attempting to create a self-contained grid drafting card pool.

Real Magic Theory (tm)

As alluded to prior, this section is going to be fleshed out when I stop procrastinating. For now, I want to touch on two primary topics: metagames and construction logic.

Thematic Limited-driven Metagames

Grid has felt like the perfect environment to cram parasitic (and/or healthy) themes down throats, like one might find in a retail Limited set. The format also seems ideal to create freakin' weird metagames, the sort kitchen-deck battles of which many MTG players may be fond. My approach up until now has been to design either (1) variations of existing draft formats or (2) try to emulate some weird Extended or Standard metagame from a decade ago.

It seems pretty "easy" to create a Limited-inspired grid, but the Constructed-inspired metagames have been a real chore to build. Maybe, my Limited-inspired creations won't be that fun to play, though, and I will recant this statement. Also, many, many thanks to Kirblinx for all of his help developing the tribute to Meddling Mage grid! It would be a hot mess without our three head-to-head sessions, but I am quite happy with it at this point and expect very minimal fiddling moving forward.

General Principles/Rules

(Rule 1) Design for Grid Only. This is the most important rule. Grid drafting is a *lot* different than traditional cube, and the numbers of effect/card types and spells at particular mana costs need to consider the unique implications of grid drafting. Each player gets eight first picks and eight second-to-third picks (due to 'Rule 3'). Each card selected during draft is a card that the opponent cannot take. The opponent's total selected card pool is public knowledge (so cards like Meddling Mage and Cabal Therapy have a lot more play than in normal cube).

(Rule 2) Four colors only. The removal of a color from the grid population seemed so radical and yet is simple and elegant. I haven't tried to make a grid with all 5 colors yet (and may not), but for now, the 4c grid is one of my steadfast mandatory design rules. As Jason alluded to in his article, removing a color makes the average card more impactful for each player (and creates more decision points, thus increasing replayability).

(Rule 3) Draft 144 of 162 total cards. After some 144 card populations were drafted, I went up to 162 card populations where only 144 cards were meant to be drafted. This is in direct response to players drafting with 100 percent certainty that a particular card or cards will show up in any given draft.

(Principle 1) Color balance and combination support. In the vein of making the average card more impactful on each players' decisions, I've tried to cut down on color-pair support in most grids to less than the six that 4-color Magic normally supports. Additionally, I find color imbalance to be an interesting knob to turn in the hopes of making the average card more relevant.

(Principle 2) Multiples are encouraged. To support the thematic approach of retail Limited or ancient Constructed formats, I've liberally included multiples in all of my grids. I suppose that I could eventually make a cube-inspired grid that strictly adheres to singleton, but for now, that's not… in the… cards.


That's it for now! I'll archive older versions of this in quotes as I update it. Look below for my current and retired grids!

It seems pretty "easy" to create a Limited-inspired or Cube-inspired grid, but the Constructed-inspired metagames have been a real chore to build (as both attempts have gone through many big changes and only remains active as of writing this update). Also, many, many thanks to @Kirblinx for all of his help developing the early Invitational Limelight (formerly Med Mage) grid and the forum folks who've spent the time and energy to invest in this community (and my posts)! Look below for old and active grids!
 
Last edited:
Updated 2021.07.16 - please note many of these links are unfortunately now broken as I moved to CubeCobra. I will endeavor to catalog some of these grids in a later post.

Retired One-on-One Draft Populations

Some history on these grids captured in post https://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/im-going-gaga-for-grid-drafting.1522/post-105688 (as below links are broken in some instances).

Pre-Grid

IPA Solomon/Winston Stack: http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/7092
Here's my failed attempt to have fun with Solomon and Winston drafting. It wasn't terrible, but it was not inspiring. All five colors are included (with a heavy focus on multicolor).

Built to Grid Era One

Nonblue Sharzad Mess Grid: http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/47988
This grid was a more of a thought exercise than a proof of concept. It features safra's Sharzad cube from early 2016, a hefty color imbalance toward black and green (while removing blue cards) and my liberal edits/additions.
Nonred Ravnica Renaissance Mess Grid: http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/55582
This grid is similar to one of my active ones but wasn't updated with any of the knowledge that came from its play sessions. It is themed on the original Ravnica block and supports just three guilds (Selesnya, Dimir, Golgari), with a color skew toward black and green.
Built to Grid Era Two
This grid is the other original Ravnica Block Limited themed grid; the one that made it to the refinement stage. It features a focus on Boros with support for Selesnya and Izzet guilds (and contains respective color imbalance). The power level is meant to be fairly low with a focus on the two-for-ones and subtle card advantage of original Ravnica.
This grid was meant to channel the feeling of modern core sets with a bit of color-pair design philosophy from the newer 'Masters' sets. Unlike all of my other grids, this one supports all six color pairs, albeit weekly. Decks are meant to have two-to-three synergy directions on average.
Nongreen, Meddling Mage Tribute: http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/59149
This grid was meant to be a tribute to Meddling Mage and channel Constructed decks from the turn of the century. It primarily supported four color pairs as well as 4-color control. Decks are meant to be pretty powerful but allow for interplay over the course of many turns. At the time, I considered this to be my best example of the advantages designing specifically for grid drafting.
Nonred, Ode to Odyssey & Onslaught: https://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/69690
This grid was meant to capture the essence of Odyssey & Onslaught Standard Constructed decks (but not necessarily use cards to recreate the themes). It needs a heavy rework to land on a proper power band.
 
Last edited:
Updated 2021.07.16

Active Grid Populations

This grid is an updated Ravnica-Block-Limited-themed grid; the one that made it to the refinement stage. It features a focus on Boros with support for Selesnya and Izzet guilds (and contains respective color imbalance). The power level is meant to be fairly low with a focus on the two-for-ones and subtle card advantage of original Ravnica with a focus on combat.
This grid is an updated Ravnica-Block-Limited-themed grid; the one that made it to the refinement stage. It features a focus on Azorius with support for Orzhov and Simic guilds (and contains respective color imbalance). The power level is meant to be fairly low with a focus on the two-for-ones and subtle card advantage of original Ravnica with a focus on attrition.
This grid is themed after Khans-Fate Reforged draft and includes all five clans as potential draft strategies. Again, it is meant to have a fairly low power level but with a focus on the combat decisions that enamored me in the retail environment. There is a bit of a color imbalance toward red and black so that the three two-color decks have a few more options in mono-colored cards.
This grid is meant to channel the feeling of modern core sets with a bit of color-pair design philosophy from the newer 'Masters' sets. Unlike most of my other grids, this one supports all six color pairs, albeit weakly, and is singleton. Decks are meant to have two-to-three synergy directions on average.
This card population aims to evoke nostalgia of the early 2000s Extended format with lower-velocity threats and splashy spells or card interactions. A high density of card advantage (mostly as 2-for-1s) in all colors propels many games into the mid-to-late turns. There are multiples (2-to-3) of integral and format-glue cards.


There are 4 primary color pairs each supporting two main stylistic approaches:​
  • {R/W}Artifact and/or Token Aggro
  • {W/U}Stoneblade Tempo and/or Control
  • {U/B}Forbiddian Tempo and/or Control
  • {B/R}Artifact Reanimator Midrange and/or Attrition-based Tempo

3-to-4-color decks play similarly to Jund or Next-Level Blue (and leverage power over synergy)​

Did I mention that seven Magic Invitational Winners' cards are included (and one World Champion Winner's card)? 0_0​

5-color, 2-headed-giant, Battlebond: https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/5f1a55d16ffa09102f80080e
This is a "set Grid" built after Battlebond and features Cogwork Librarian, Partner with and transformative DFCs as build-arounds for 2-headed-giant gameplay. The grid is purely theory at this point but is aimed to be drafted in twenty 3x3 grids, to be drafted 2 at a time by the active team (leading to 50-60 cards per team for deck constructed).
This grid was built to showcase Limited synergies and gameplay throughout the games history (in an approach between Mystery Boosters and Modern Masters/Horizons). It is 180 cards (so it can be conventionally drafted), singleton and only White, Black and Blue. A departure from other Grids I maintain, there are a few Mystery Booster Convention Edition and Planeswalker cards included.
 
Last edited:
This is very interesting, thanks for taking the time to share.

Would you mind elaborating on rule 3 please? I don't really understand what you mean.
 
Thanks for enjoying, Alfonzo!

(Rule 3) Draft 144 of 162 total cards. After some 144 card populations were drafted, I went up to 162 card populations where only 144 cards were meant to be drafted. This is in direct response to players drafting with 100 percent certainty that a particular card or cards will show up in any given draft.

The genus of this rule was a desire for some level of uncertainty that a particular card or combination of cards will show up in any given draft. Since the grids are being drafted in 16 three-by-three groups, 144 cards are needed for a grid draft and anything beyond the 144 will go undrafted during each session. I choose 18 a bit arbitrarily besides it being a multiple of nine and being relatively low. This rule means each Grid population will contain exactly 162 cards with a random 144 of them being drafted. (Does this clarify the rule more? Should I change the OP?)

With only 18 extra cards missing, the main cruxes of a format (themes, mana curve, mana fixing, answers) should remain relatively intact while the individual cards are not guaranteed. In extreme examples, there may be neutered strategies or colors, but I am confident with my waning understanding of probability that this will occur so infrequently that it is essentially a nonissue. And given how grid drafting works, I'd expect an affected player to pivot to another strategy with minimal wasted picks unless they had an unhealthy dose of tunnel vision.
 
Is this pretty much the best way to draft sim? It looks it.

I think I am going to build that pikula grid.


My brain is not parsing out your question correctly; would you please restate it?

And thank you for the interest! Kirblinx has a lot of fantastic pieces of feedback scattered throughout our grid sessions if you want to consider some other choices prior to making any decisions:

http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/meddling-mage-grid-1.1445/
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/meddling-mage-grid-2.1457/
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/meddling-mage-grid-3.1460/

Also, I want to present the grid to Pikula, but I am unsure of the best way. We interact some via Twitter (mostly metal music chat), and I've teased the grid to him, but I've never met the man. Part of me wants to attempt to write something for TCGPlayer (since their site seems perfect to buy a grid in one shot) as a strange sort of open love letter (to grid drafting, not to Mister Pikula). Any thoughts?
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
My brain is not parsing out your question correctly; would you please restate it?

And thank you for the interest! Kirblinx has a lot of fantastic pieces of feedback scattered throughout our grid sessions if you want to consider some other choices prior to making any decisions:

http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/meddling-mage-grid-1.1445/
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/meddling-mage-grid-2.1457/
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/meddling-mage-grid-3.1460/

Also, I want to present the grid to Pikula, but I am unsure of the best way. We interact some via Twitter (mostly metal music chat), and I've teased the grid to him, but I've never met the man. Part of me wants to attempt to write something for TCGPlayer (since their site seems perfect to buy a grid in one shot) as a strange sort of open love letter (to grid drafting, not to Mister Pikula). Any thoughts?


Sorry, I should have specified "retail limited draft simulator," as in, a good way to recreate the feel of retail limited sets. I'm most interested in being able to run somewhat narrow draft uncommons, like burning vengeance, and not have density issues.

I would probably both write the article, and than send a short friendly message to Chris.

Do you want him to build the grid?
 
Exactly! The niche card support is one of the big draws to designing for the grid format. I'd love to see a lower-powered graveyard grid (possibly with a lands theme). The set-inspired grids have felt pedestrian, so I would work on going far beyond retail limited for inspiration (unless you really enjoyed a format).

RE: Chris, I'd like him to at least try it once, but... I'd think he'd be a bit sad that Meddling Mage is a bit of an underperformer. :oops:
 
Thanks for enjoying, Alfonzo!



The genus of this rule was a desire for some level of uncertainty that a particular card or combination of cards will show up in any given draft. Since the grids are being drafted in 16 three-by-three groups, 144 cards are needed for a grid draft and anything beyond the 144 will go undrafted during each session. I choose 18 a bit arbitrarily besides it being a multiple of nine and being relatively low. This rule means each Grid population will contain exactly 162 cards with a random 144 of them being drafted. (Does this clarify the rule more? Should I change the OP?)

With only 18 extra cards missing, the main cruxes of a format (themes, mana curve, mana fixing, answers) should remain relatively intact while the individual cards are not guaranteed. In extreme examples, there may be neutered strategies or colors, but I am confident with my waning understanding of probability that this will occur so infrequently that it is essentially a nonissue. And given how grid drafting works, I'd expect an affected player to pivot to another strategy with minimal wasted picks unless they had an unhealthy dose of tunnel vision.

Thanks, this makes sense now. Seems like a good way to do it.
 
Grid Fired!: A Paper M-Origins Story

Went for a stroll to the local gaming haunt this weekend to proposition a game of grid... and had success!

Grabbed a beer and cut out my mini, laminated tokens in an attempt to generate some curiosity. It failed, but look at these little cuties. I highly recommend making 'em if you're cubing in the flesh often. Step 1: copy token images from Magic Online (or mock them up in your favorite graphic editor). Step 2: copy images at one-per-page in MSWord (or something similar). Step 3: print 16 pages per sheet. Step 4: cut out tokens, laminate, and cut out tokens ...again. (It's worth the hour or two of effort, in my opinion. I took a shortcut, though, as these are a bit lazily cut.)

tokens morigins.jpg

I need a better sales presentation, or a pamphlet, as it was difficult to convert a cold-call without being a part of the community. (And I am not willing to play Magic at the frequency needed to become of a part of this community, unless it's cube-ish-related. (Wow, I sure do sound like an asshole reading this for a quick proof.)) Luckily, though, one individual was eager to play some faux-Limited.

Adversary, as we will call him, had a peasant cube, but had never heard of grid drafting. He also had never Solomoned or Winstoned. We shuffled up Nonblue Grid: M-Origins and started after failing to find 2 more to 4-person draft his peasant cube. (The fates were smiling on me...)

I started off drafting black-green ramp, but when I hate-drafted a Tahngarth and a few other red spells, the deck switched directions. The deck was pretty light on quality creatures but (hopefully) made up for it in removal and card selection/advantage. I figured I needed to win slowly, so I cut most of the 2cmc creatures in favor of spells. Possibly, Boros Guildmage would've been better than Revoker or Witch, though, as it has 2 toughness, despite being harder to cast.

M-Origins Machine Head

Twos (7)
Corpse Hauler
Shambling Ghoul
Tattermunge Witch
Phyrexian Revoker
Reave Soul
Magma Jet

Threes (4)
Devouring Swarm
Dragon Engine
Drown in Sorrow
Read the Bones

Fours (5)
Goblin Heelcutter
Blazing Specter
Desecrator Hag
Grisly Spectacle

Fives (5)
Predatory Nightstalker
Tahngarth, Talruum Hero
Anarchist
Void
Burn Away

Sixes+ (2)
Phyrexian Gargantua
Covenant of Blood

Lands (17)
Temple of Silence
Orzhov Basilica
Golgari Rot Farm
Temple of Abandon
Gruul Turf
Rakdos Carnarium
Evolving Wilds
Swamp
Mountain

Relevant SB (6)
Mardu Scout
Boros Guildmage
Orcish Bloodpainter
Faith Unbroken
Covenant of Blood
Unmake the Graves

(0)


Adversary started off drafting white-red but switched into green-white to take a Cultivate and Siege Wurm after hating some green cards. His skill level seemed to be moderate in terms of Limited Magic, but the deck seemed functional despite not being optimized from my perspective.

M-Origins Abzan (Simply Selesnya) Midrange

Twos (9)
Precinct Captain
Sakura-Tribe Elder
Raise the Alarm
Indomitable Will
Pacifism
Life's Legacy
Selesnya Charm

Threes (4)
Mentor of the Meek
Carven Caryatid
Prison Term
Cultivate

Fours (4)
Phantom General
Seraph of Dawn
Strands of Undeath

Fives (4)
Totem-Guide Hartebeest
Sentinel Spider
Three Dreams

Sixes+ (2)
Siege Wurm
Feral Incarnation

Lands (17)
Temple of Malady
Selesnya Sanctuary
Plains
Forest
Swamp

Relevant SB (15)
Savage Twister
Read the Bones
Dragon Engine
Ratchet Bomb
Phyrexian Revoker
Time to Feed
Reclamation Sage
Slaughterhorn
Life's Legacy
War Priest of thune
Stonecloaker
Judge Unworthy

(0)


Games! (3 of 5)

I prefer playing best 3 of 5 to respect the amount of time the drafting portion takes. I could see even best 2 of 3 matches if the decks were particularly fun.

The first game was great! I was pressured early by some Soldiers and then pacifism effects took my blockers out of commission. The turning point occurred when I drew Void to kill multiple 4cmc creatures. The adversary also used Life's Legacy on a fresh Sentinel Spider after the other Spider and Feral Incarnation had been milled into the graveyard from Grisly Spectacle. I think it was a game-ending mistake, as he drew 4 lands and my Phyrexian Gargantua was able to seal the deal.​
The second game seemed like it was going to be brutal for me, with double Raise the Alarm into Feral Incarnation turning up the heat quickly. Luckily, I had Void again. And an Anarchist. I stabilized and adversary never got back into the game.​
The final game was all about Blazing Specter. My removal cleared the ghostrider's path and adversary never drew his own removal.​

I think the games would've been closer if adversary hadn't focused on Three Dreams and instead went into a more value-based deck plan (with removal and possibly Read the Bones). Three Dreams seems more of a red-white or true 3-4c midrange card to me (or at least I would only have splashed for a red and not a black aura, but that is probably just because I am the designer and have thought about it more).

GENERAL CARD FEEDBACK WANTED

I am a bit concerned that Blazing Specter and Void combine to make black-red lures too far above the other color combos. I will keep an open eye (and consider downgrading to Pyre Zombie and/or Spontaneous Combustion). Also, in the multicolored slots, I think Dryad Militant should probably change to another card- suggestions?

Black-red also seemed to have perhaps too much removal... I am considering changing one Reave Soul to a third Read the Bones. Does Read look too powerful to have a third copy added?

I want to get another Siege Wurm in the mix; should I axe a Time to Feed or something else?

Lastly, Glimpse the Sun God is starting to seem less and less deserving of a spot. Originally, I was thinking both aggressive and defensive decks could use it, but the scry is not a cantrip, so I think it is pretty undesirable on the whole. Which spells could replace this? Are there any cards with Scry that could be used by multiple deck strategies?
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
How did your opponent feel (or look to feel) about the draft and the games? Its pretty understandable that he we would lose his first time doing it, but did he enjoy it enough to want to try again, and get better?

His deck looks like it didn't quite come together, being a convoke/ramp deck with only one convoke target/fattie, and a weird tokens sub theme that seems very inconsistent as an aggro plan.

I can see why he wanted the aura tutors, as it helps him somewhat generate consistency in the midgame and late (which is inevitably going to be an issue) and helps justify running a light removal suite, but running a light removal suite means you run into issues when you naturally draw the auras.

Your deck looks much better, though it looks like it was built more off a sealed formula (as it should be), with a focus on dense removal, 2 for 1s, and card draw. He tried to draft more of a draft deck.

I would not add another read the bones: black looks very strong compared with the other colors, and maybe pairs too well with red. I'm not sure if void and specter are really problems, or if the the issues is more R/B's ability to bulk up on lightly-conditioned removal, sweepers and card draw/shifting.

White in general looks maybe a bit odd. I know the three raise the alarm are there to feed convoke/sacrifice synergies, but kind of suggest an aggro plan that isn't really there. Big ramp targets are really the only spot on a mtg curve where the game actively wants ETBs i.m.o. I know you are using siege wurm's to get around that, but combining low CC aggressive token makers with higher CC midrange ramp targets is a disjointed strategy that punishes you for drawing your deck in the wrong order. You probably want G/W to both be growing horizontally and vertically, generating inevitability; the large convoke threats are sort of the icing on the cake, but not the goal of the strategy.

Otherwise, I think you probably want some sort of ETB attached to your fattie, to justify the mana and time expenditure in ramping out a big individual threat. Otherwise you just get blown out by removal or traitorous instincts.

Triple judge unworthy (and time to feed in green) seem to be working off of a higher degree of conditionality compared to black (or even red) removal.
 
How did your opponent feel (or look to feel) about the draft and the games? Its pretty understandable that he we would lose his first time doing it, but did he enjoy it enough to want to try again, and get better?


I think he was disappointed that he didn't win a game, but during games one and two, he seemed generally enthused. I do not know if he'd want to try it again, but I did suggest that he try it with his own cube (so who knows what'll happen).

And thank you so much for the feedback! It summed up what I felt but hadn't quite transposed into coherent thoughts (or sentences). And it touches upon some topics that I need to address in the original post regarding grid design (specifically thematic support, comparative card quality and removal densities).

Red and black removal needs to alter somewhat to be less dense and more conditional. I think I will remove Wicked Pact and one Grisly Spectacle for one-to-two pieces of removal that give a creature -X/-X or do X damage, where X is a constant equal to or less than 4. Hopefully, there is a good sorcery-speed candidate. Also, I may add a Recover and/or a Harsh Scrutiny to the spell base.

More is needed to make Raise the Alarm really a part of the environment. I may add a Security Blockade to give another Aura and token. Are there any cards that synergize with tokens in white at the 2cmc creature slot (to take the place of the underwhelming Arashin Celric)? The Glimpse the Sun God slot could go toward this strategy. I really want to stay away from +1/+1 counters, though, as well as adding additional types of tokens (although, I may be willing to add saprolings or goblins, as I already made them for other grids[/c]).

As for marrying green to the tokens somewhat, you're right that the high CMC cards just get trumped by removal, so I am somewhat at a loss of how to tie tokens and ramp together. Maybe, Root-Kin Ally would be a better include than the Wurm. I could also look at Wayfaring Temple, Knotvine Paladin, Selesnya Guildmage, Seedcradle Witch or Engineered Might as the other multicolored cards. Lastly, regarding green, what do you think of the Feral Incarnation; should there be a second copy?

As for marrying black and red to tokens... I believe the Viscera Seer should be a different sacrifice outlet, perhaps a Malevolent Awakening, Stronghold Assassin or Fleshbag Marauder. Also, Flesh Allergy could replace a Grisly Spectacle. Kruin Striker or even a Goblin Bombardment may be better than some of the current red 2cmcs (of which there might be 1 too many creatures, anyway).

I think Obstinate Baloth may be a fun inclusion for this format with the discard present; Dodecapod was a SB card of sorts during Blazing Specter's time in Standard.

This grid has a lot of tweaking to be done, but I am happy with the basic premise.
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
I really like the idea of running harsh scrutiny. The card appeals to me as a reasonable way to simulate the feel of thoughtseize, but tailored for a limited environment.

Recover seems really good given the grindy nature of a lot of these duals. In general, I think being able to get back your best card in any of these singletonish limited formats is a very strong play. I think you kind of have to think of that style of effect almost like above the curve big card draw. The tricky thing is that black can so easily become like a super variant of blue in this context, as the temptation exists to include traditional raise dead style effects to represent a classic part of black's color pie, while also wanting to provide night's whisper style effects to compensate for the absence of blue. Its easy to end up with a glut of the best card advantage pieces localized in one color.

We already have two corpse hauler's (which I quite like, since you can interact with the overcosted raise dead and they occupy multiple points on the curve: all healthy things for the format), and unmake the graves, phyrexian gargantua and two read the bones. It seems like black card advantage is already very strong, to the point where downgrading or cutting read the bones is an option, and blacks card advantage engine can be rooted in slow creature recursion.

I think you are on the right path with G/W, where its curve snowballs into a cooperative board state that eventually overpowers an opponent. Selesnya guildmage looks about perfect as a dual enabler/pay off card.

I'm kind of surprised at the absence of these cards:



You kind of want people to be thinking of untapped creatures as unused mana sources, to create the same sense of uncertainty of playing against a flash deck. Scatter really bridges the gap between raise the alarm and the big convoke creatures, like siege wurm (which should feel like a severely undercosted curve toppers).

You'll want to have a greater density of convoke fatties I think, so you can kind of structure a deck to have a higher than average CMC, cheating on deck structure with the convoke mechanic. The high CC ones should have some type of evasion (trample/flying) so they actually carry some potency when resolved.

If an opponent has to split their removal's focus between the big vertical convoke threats, and the token pumping horizontal threats, that should create interesting space for the strategy to overwhelm even fairly robust removal suites, with the only lame games being where the opp draws removal in either the exact right order or exact wrong order.
 
Thank you again for the well-thought-out feedback. I have a proposed set of changes based on your feedback, which I will use to conclude this post.

RE: card advantage. This may be the first time that I've designed a nonblue Limited environment, and it seems that I feel into the design mentality with black that you described. I very likely asked myself this exact question: "what other card advantage effects can I add to black".

RE: G/W convoke tricks. I thought some on this (as originally, I had Scatter and Devouring Light included), and ultimately decided that if this was to an entry-level grid, the tapped-out ambush potential may cause highly-negative emotional spikes for players. So, the grid was regulated to the sorcery-speed convoke cards and instant-speed cards that didn't affect the board.

RE: big threats and vertical/horizontal (previous post). I am considering in this retooling adding some creatures that impacted the board on the way in or out instead of the big legends. Additionally, some additional token makers (saprolings!) and Wild Beastmasters (along with removal for 1-toughness creatures) may join the fray.

RE: removal (previous post). The removal inclusions have been changed somewhat to vary between the class of threats that may be targeted. (Question 1: is Setessan Tactics too good? Right now, I have Epic Confrontation slotted in, but I would switch to the strive card given confidence in it being a lower power level.) (Question 2: should Reave Souls turn into some -X/-X, instant-speed removal for more interaction?)

Proposed changes (OUT)

Proposed changes (IN)


R.I.P. bloodrush. Maybe, some other time...
 
More M-origins Musings

If I were to change Reave Soul to Last Gasp, it seems only ~5 creatures would be positively affected (don't die to Gasp but do to Reave). The change feels healthy, though, to add some interplay to combat and auras. I also feel like Death Grasp should change to a card that isn't removal and doesn't look to token synergy, such as Sin Collector, Gift of Orzhova, Evershrike or Treasury Thrull.

That, however, would lower the sorcery count to under 25, making me feel Anarchist needs to rotate out. Upon looking at red 5cmc+ creature cards, I didn't really find any ETB effects that felt natural for the power level. My short list includes Goblin Rally, Batterhorn, Arc-Slogger, Cinder Hellion and Bloodshot Cyclops. Goblin Dark-Dwellers seems a bit too powerful, but I could be wrong.

Meddling Mage Modifications?

I had the chance to draft this with a friend over the weekend, and while I do not have the deck lists handy, I can say (1) I drafted the Replenish/Starfield of Nyx deck and (2) it was a hot, hot mess. My mana was bad with 7 duals (4-c deck), and my discard (~6 cards) and enchantment (~8) densities seemed below the necessary threshold. Starfield really wants more cards like Sinister Concoction or larger enchantment creatures when not paired with Replenish and/or discard outlets. The pool probably needs a few more draw/discard cards as well.

Adversary had a BUw midrange deck with meddling mages and some countermagic. I won a game where Attunement got going and drew almost my whole deck (while opponent stumbled); I lost two games where I couldn't cast anything of consequence.

I am hesitant to remove too many cards from this grid for cards dramatically different in role, since the other archetypes have felt pretty stable in the games I've played with Kirblinx. My potential swaps are 1x Call the Bloodline (seems like a niche roleplayer) -> (an enchantment, preferably), 1x Void Stalker -> Frantic Search, 1x Dig Through Time -> (something that draws and discards, maybe Careful Consideration), 1x Bident of Thassa -> (some other enchantment that a controlling deck would want to play) and 1x Tormenting Voice -> Cathartic Reunion. Lastly, I think it may be time to swap out Think Twice for Preordain. No one wants to draft Think Twice. :( And should Waterfront Bouncer become looter Jace?

The Starfield/Replenish build might be a fringe archetype, but I think it can be supported without compromising the rest of the grid. We will see...Ideas encouraged and appreciated!
 
Cool updates. Interesting about the Last Gasp switch. It's pretty feel-bad against wild beastmaster, who would give the attacking team -2/-2 at starting stats. Even with, say, bonesplitter, she turns what the attacker thought was safe into +0/+0, and can lead to blocking blowouts.

Just a thought. And maybe that intraction is intentional.
 
Thanks, sigh! I am excited to drudge toward finalization. The interaction would be intentional.

Side note: One thing i want to write about at some point is the pick dynamics of grid versus conventional draft, and how cards must be selected to influence the pick process. It feels a bit different and has been influencing design.
 
Thanks, sigh! I am excited to drudge toward finalization. The interaction would be intentional.

Side note: One thing i want to write about at some point is the pick dynamics of grid versus conventional draft, and how cards must be selected to influence the pick process. It feels a bit different and has been influencing design.

Yes please! I'd like to read that.
 

Jason Waddell

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is fantastic, I've never really explored designing exclusively for Grid Draft. Love to test this with you sometime Chris.
 
Thank you everyone for your interest and dialogue! Please accept my apologies; I have not distilled these thoughts beyond huge blocks of loosely related text. And looking over everything, I feel some of my initial confidence in the outline of grid attributes to have vanished. Hopefully, I'll be able to organize the notes more logically and refine the wording as more grids are made and we have discussion on the format. Please poke at these ideas with your sharpest sticks, and I will reflect on all critical feedback in an attempt to concisely state the principles or address questions. I 'feel' a lot of factors in motion, but I am having a hard time breaking them down into digestible written word.
Grid draft as a self-contained format has a long way to go before reaching the (im?)maturity of cube, and I am eager to work toward getting the most from the unique experience that it offers! Long-live the micrometagame.​
The Implications of Grid Drafting on Card Inclusion

Jason article ...ish said:
Grid drafting is a two-player format that works as follows:
• Start with 16 packs of 9 cards.
• For each pack, lay it out in a 3x3 grid face up (just lay them out in order, don't look at the cards and decide where each one should go).
• The first player takes a row or column.
• The second player takes a remaining row or column. Discard the undrafted cards (which will be 3 or 4 cards per pack).
• Alternate who goes first each pack.
By the numbers, each player will end up drafting between 40 and 48 cards from the total 144-card pool.

The method of card selection in grid should play a huge role in determining the correct percentage of the total population to be attributed to specific effects or levels of power. This post will attempt to lay the foundation to address (1) the implication of grid drafting on the mindset behind and actuality of card selection and (2) which aspects of the card population should receive special attention (as well as how I have been addressing them).

The reality is that grid draft formats are formats built around first and second picks, and thats going to have to be taken into account somewhere

What Grillo stated needs to be taken into account everywhere. But what does building a healthy format around first, second ...and third picks really look like? I am by no means near the magic "formulae" for grids but have learned a few lessons about what really makes the format tick.

Power band. The majority of the population needs to be built within a tight power band, with some allowance for variation above the mean card. This is to fight against "clear first picks" most packs (but not all packs). It is also to promote synergy-based card selection as means over overcoming the individual card power band.

As a grid designer, I really want to converge on a draft environment where players start by picking cards that are powerful in a vacuum or are synergy enablers and then transition to picking cards to fill out their deck (rather than always slam the best cards in each 3x3 and end up playing games that feel as though they came from super-sealed).

The method of card selection in grid *really* punishes cards that are not in the higher power tiers given the population; cards that are not up to snuff will almost never be picked on purpose (and only end up available for deck building if a better pick was available in the same row or column). In conventional drafting, due to the nature of packs and picks, the lower-tier cards at least often end up in a drafter's pile of cards available for deck building when card selection has ceased (given their color(s) align with that of the drafter).

Number of playables. Given the way picks in grid occur, a tight power band should lead to a *large* amount of playables for each drafter. This abundance of playables, coupled with the one-versus-one nature of the format should lead to hate-drafting as a strategy for some number of first pick packs (most likely, during the latter half of the grid). Additionally, as players play cat and mouse to zero in on particular colors or strategies, they should find speculative picks valuable in the early-to-middle portion of the draft.

With speculative and hate picks leading to a nonlinear pool of selected cards, players may find themselves able to support different archetypes than anticipated (especially within the colors selected). With proper densities and power band maintained, the initial picks during drafting should never pigeonhole a player into a color or strategy, but instead give them the option to invest more if the opportunities arise.

Density of effects. This won't be a surprise to anyone, but trimming down the number of cards that were "just good" in favor for increasing the density of certain cards (more token-makers in green, more 2cmc creatures to enable pressure, etc.) was the first step to enabling more viable decks after drafting. Reducing the most powerful/efficient removal spells in quantity finally led to an increase the number of viable decks. After these changes, two-color synergy decks were proving viable against the 3-4c "goodstuff" monstrosities (and bouncelands were going unpicked in favor of picking up synergy components).

The majority of cards in a grid should just be the glue that holds decks together. For example, the Med mage grid needs (1) cards to fill in the lower part of the mana curve, (2) discard outlets to couple with Replenish, reanimator and madness, (3) mana-fixing lands to prevent games from ending before they start and (4) interactive spells to allow decks to spar with a wide variety of the strange scenarios that may occur due to the card population to enable even the idea of drafting around the esoteric inclusions.

More fragile strategies should be weighted more heavily in the population, as these strategies will probably require a greater density of cards to work in most capacities (such as aura- or discard-related strategies). The drafted population needs to align to segments of the total population such that cards that glean value from synergies have an appropriate chance of being selected. This should consider mana costs (both from CMC and color commitment aspects) as well, so that there is a timely window to assemble the combinations in game.

And the average answer should be respective of the population's threats. If the threats take several-to-many turns to close out a game, the removal should not both be cheap (in mana terms) and all inclusive. Most answers should not be catch-all, and instead only line-up favorable against a subsection of the threat strategies within the grid.

Quantity versus quality. One tricky part is finding an average card power level such that the opportunity cost (opponent can take the powerful cards) of taking "less powerful" cards when choosing first isn't too high. Initially, my above grids seemed to favor 2-for-1 goodstuff piles with cards like Enlisted Wurm, Auratouched Mage and Compulsive Research dictating games' outcomes. During the actual card selection process, the slower pace of games led both players to selecting cards that provided card advantage regardless of color just so the opposing player wouldn't get too far ahead in the 2-for-1 slugout. Neither deck focused on synergies with both decks aiming to glean a few advantages from the synergies here and there during game play.

Cards should naturally fit into multiple decks, especially if they are on the lower end of the power band (which should makeup a larger percentage of the population). This is to add incentive to picking a slightly less powerful card in tandem with an additional less powerful card or a card the opponent could play. Lands often will fall into this paradigm, but lower-tier removal and replaceable creatures should as well.

Brain Death

Again, the above feels incomplete, but hopefully it's an okay conversation starter. Let's figure out as much about this fantastic Limited variant as we can!

Oh, yeah, and I've been busy giving MTG stores money...

Updating Two Grids
The M-origins grid needed a lot of TLC, so I expect this won't be the last of the updates (but I hope future updates won't be so massive). Until I've a better grasp as to how different ratios of card classes interact, building grids will be a crapshoot (and most likely necessitate a lot of heavy, initial updates).

Focus: more interactivity. decrease in removal density (partially through varying what it answers). additions to defensive ramp, aura support and token strategies.

(OUT)


(IN)

The changes to the Med Mage grid are to bolster blue-based decks (spells/control, madness, enchantment combo) and cut some dregs. Most notably, Relics are out for two 'off-color' duals; the greedy decks seem to need a few more lands to really function (and off-color duals shouldn't aid the linear decks as much).

(OUT)


(IN)

To come...

A 5-color IPA-inspired grid: Let's Make Mana Terrible Again!
Maybe something with some land synergies
Maybe something with allies
Full English Breakfast grid (I just want to play Phyrexian Dreadnought in a format where people are Stifle-ing fetch lands and reading Volrath's Shapeshifter.)
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
Do you have any opinions on game pacing? I suppose this goes somewhat to how games are supposed to play out in sealed, but I'm still curious.

To make that less hopelessly vague: I'm imagining games are supposed to be dictated more on a macro level: slower, more card advantage focused; however, when we were doing the penny grids, I felt that the games were oftentimes dictated by kind of derpy early aggression, due to the minimal lifegain in the format. Getting outpaced (or stumbling) in your board development, felt pretty fatal.

The game pacing was really attrition focused, much more than I had expected, though you still wanted good sources of CA, but even that was more to keep yourself from getting outpaced or overwhelmed by threat presentment.
 
Do you have any opinions on game pacing? I suppose this goes somewhat to how games are supposed to play out in sealed, but I'm still curious.

To make that less hopelessly vague: I'm imagining games are supposed to be dictated more on a macro level: slower, more card advantage focused; however, when we were doing the penny grids, I felt that the games were oftentimes dictated by kind of derpy early aggression, due to the minimal lifegain in the format. Getting outpaced (or stumbling) in your board development, felt pretty fatal.

Let me rephrase that maybe a little better.

In constructed, or even in cube draft, you can kind of think of a format in terms of matchups, and the way different match ups are paced out: faster aggro matches, grindy midrange, or card advantage focused control. Because card selection allows decks to operate at such varying speeds, game pacing can vary tremendously, even within the confines of an overall "slower" or "faster" format.

In grid draft, it feels like game pacing would overall be more aggregate across decks: e.g. this are no real "aggro" decks for example: so the total card pool would have to take into account that nearly all of the games must develop along a similar pacing and flow.

Games with the Med Mage grid have been similar to older constructed matches: lots of early action and then some back-and-forth until a deck wins (or clearly will win). Kirblinx and I had some really exciting games out to turn 10 or so; including one where he was recurring land destruction, and I clawed back into it with a control deck. Decks have had a primary focus and do not feel like sealed decks at all. Different decks have different plans, even though there they use some of the same cards, and the cards are sometimes used in different ways.

Games with the Rav and M-origins grids have been closer to draft, with slower early development (and some trading) leading into key plays in the midgame. Some decks have felt like sealed and others like draft (or MMA draft), but as the Rav format evolved (moving card advantage out of solely one color, adding support for synergies, adding redundant copies of lower-impact cards, balancing amount and types of removal, etc.), the decks became much more coherent (and played out more like draft decks).

I believe one of the main benefits of building a grid specifically to be drafted as such is that the decks get away from the sealed-style and converge on draft or constructed (depending on the power band selected). The challenge is finding the correct numbers to facilitate this. I could easily see IPA block constructed being recreated through a grid population.
 
Got a M-origins and Med Mage grid in this weekend... going to make some knee-jerk changes in the hopes of balancing color potential. Generally, it was fun, but:

M-Origins: red-black control seemed to overpower green-white midrange. will adjust to less removal in black, a teeny bit of green token support.
Med Mage: black-white and blue-black seemed underpowered compared to 4-c replenish control. (could've been drafting mistakes on my part.) will slightly retool white-based aggro & blue-red control/madness.

updates ... to come ... !
 
Top