Thanks, unfortunately the site went offline (maybe temporary?).
General Fight Club
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
summary as best as i can remember
- combo with fetchland to shuffle away cards you don't want
- incoming thoughtseize? hide your favorite 2 cards on top of your library
- play it super late to dig for answers/finishers
- do not play it on turn 1, that is weaker than all of the above modes
I don't want to be offensive but I find the aforementioned points to be basic knowledge about BS. My concern is that those characteristics might be too good for a card that just costs U and might be able to make blue the standalone best colour in cube.
take a stroll through this http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/decks-that-have-3-0d-your-cube.47/ and I think you'll find that even cubes with five brainstorms don't turn into a blue mess.
Jason's cube, for instance, is historically a aggro favored/fastpaced place.
As far as I'm concerned, I think the two cards play well as equals, because they synergize so well with each other.
Jason's cube, for instance, is historically a aggro favored/fastpaced place.
As far as I'm concerned, I think the two cards play well as equals, because they synergize so well with each other.
I'm willing to rise the complexity in the gameplay my cube creates, if there's an opportunity to add more decisions and interactivity I'll seize it.
On the other hand I'm aware that BS -> crack fetch is a banworthy move in Legacy which is why I'm so concerned but I'll give it a try as you all seem to be so enthusiastic about it. I'll start with 2x BS 2x Ponder, maybe I'll cut Preordain and add another one of at least Brainstorm and maybe each.
On the other hand I'm aware that BS -> crack fetch is a banworthy move in Legacy which is why I'm so concerned but I'll give it a try as you all seem to be so enthusiastic about it. I'll start with 2x BS 2x Ponder, maybe I'll cut Preordain and add another one of at least Brainstorm and maybe each.
There are people running power max cubes that have either cut or considered cutting brainstorm because it didn't do enough. So I honestly think it's far from being degenerate in cube. Legacy is a whole different beast I'm pretty sure, so I wouldn't try and draw too many parallels. I'm not a legacy guy though, so others can probably speak to this more intelligently.
Yeah, I apologize for summarizing the article that was down! 
Next time I'll make sure to assume new forum users already know everything, and I'll just sit in the corner, and I'll cry and I'll eat oatmeal cookies with chocolate chips.
Next time I'll make sure to assume new forum users already know everything, and I'll just sit in the corner, and I'll cry and I'll eat oatmeal cookies with chocolate chips.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Holy sneaky self-nomination to the best non-balduvian buried bits and blurbs, batman
Laz
Developer
I think the a lot of the value of Brainstorm comes from points that RavebornMuse raised here.
While that is a totally separate topic, the key takeaways are that you want to provide your players with a strong sense of agency, a sense that the decisions that they are making matter. It allows your players to feel as through they have solved a puzzle in order to derive the maximum value out of their cards. Brainstorm provides a lot of space in which players can feel smart for 'finding a line', since the interactions that it has with other cards are wildly varied, and are hardly spelled out explicitly. Whether it is a better card (in the power-in-a-vacuum sense) than Ponder is not really a meaningful question, since due to the wealth of interactions, the power of Brainstorm is pretty context dependant.
I suspect that the reason Brainstorm is held in such high regard here is because a large part of the Riptide mantra is about trying to design such that games are decided far more by a series of good decisions, both in drafting and in play, than by external factors. Sure, sometimes there will be no lands in the top 6 cards of a deck, but in the majority of scenarios I want my drafters to feel that they have earned their wins, and learned from their losses, rather than feeling like they simply lost and there was nothing they could have done about it. You can see this attitude reflected in everything, from cutting uninteractive cards; the approach to mana-bases to minimize colour screw and add decisions in fetching; minimizing 'boring' finishers; even lowering mana curves to create more early game decisions.
Brainstorm fits very neatly into this approach, as it is a very decision dense card, and creates its own sets of sequencing decisions and board assessments that cards like Ponder or Preordain do not. While I feel that Ponder or Preordain can fit into this environment, as they also reward good assessments and help to minimize non-games, I suspect that Brainstorm's increased complexity and potential interactions makes it more desirable to us designers as a way to better create these scenarios in which our players can feel satisfied that they have found a hidden line to maximise the card's value. Ponder and Preordain just don't have the same ceiling, from a both a card power and player psychology perspective.
Obviously these points echo well outside the 'which combination of Blue cantrips do I run?' discussion, but it is rarely called out in these terms. You can see it in RavebornMuse's post that I linked earlier, and also in a lot of Grillo's posts and articles about his attempts and thoughts on adding meaningful decisions to aggressive decks. As cube designers, a core component of balancing our lists is making our players feel like they were responsible for their win or loss, not that they simply won this week's Sol Ring Lottery.
While that is a totally separate topic, the key takeaways are that you want to provide your players with a strong sense of agency, a sense that the decisions that they are making matter. It allows your players to feel as through they have solved a puzzle in order to derive the maximum value out of their cards. Brainstorm provides a lot of space in which players can feel smart for 'finding a line', since the interactions that it has with other cards are wildly varied, and are hardly spelled out explicitly. Whether it is a better card (in the power-in-a-vacuum sense) than Ponder is not really a meaningful question, since due to the wealth of interactions, the power of Brainstorm is pretty context dependant.
I suspect that the reason Brainstorm is held in such high regard here is because a large part of the Riptide mantra is about trying to design such that games are decided far more by a series of good decisions, both in drafting and in play, than by external factors. Sure, sometimes there will be no lands in the top 6 cards of a deck, but in the majority of scenarios I want my drafters to feel that they have earned their wins, and learned from their losses, rather than feeling like they simply lost and there was nothing they could have done about it. You can see this attitude reflected in everything, from cutting uninteractive cards; the approach to mana-bases to minimize colour screw and add decisions in fetching; minimizing 'boring' finishers; even lowering mana curves to create more early game decisions.
Brainstorm fits very neatly into this approach, as it is a very decision dense card, and creates its own sets of sequencing decisions and board assessments that cards like Ponder or Preordain do not. While I feel that Ponder or Preordain can fit into this environment, as they also reward good assessments and help to minimize non-games, I suspect that Brainstorm's increased complexity and potential interactions makes it more desirable to us designers as a way to better create these scenarios in which our players can feel satisfied that they have found a hidden line to maximise the card's value. Ponder and Preordain just don't have the same ceiling, from a both a card power and player psychology perspective.
Obviously these points echo well outside the 'which combination of Blue cantrips do I run?' discussion, but it is rarely called out in these terms. You can see it in RavebornMuse's post that I linked earlier, and also in a lot of Grillo's posts and articles about his attempts and thoughts on adding meaningful decisions to aggressive decks. As cube designers, a core component of balancing our lists is making our players feel like they were responsible for their win or loss, not that they simply won this week's Sol Ring Lottery.
vs Personally, I prefer the non-planeswalker demon as he's an evasive beater while being a Phyrexian Arena. The walker is able to remove creatures but only at the cost of not drawing a card. Arguments?
Ob Nix fits slightly better in a control-style deck where it frequently would be played as removal first, followed by card draw.
Bloodgift Demon has always been a tough one for me to evaluate since he usually performs worse than I expect him to. Part of the reason is simply that I've become accustomed to creatures with CMC > 4 having some sort of immediate effect, or at least a death-trigger, so it isn't quite as painful when it's immediately removed.
Bloodgift Demon has always been a tough one for me to evaluate since he usually performs worse than I expect him to. Part of the reason is simply that I've become accustomed to creatures with CMC > 4 having some sort of immediate effect, or at least a death-trigger, so it isn't quite as painful when it's immediately removed.
For what it's worth, Bloodgift Demon plays an semi-important role in the Pod decks in my environment, as he's one of two black CMC 5 creatures. It's usually good for the Pod decks to be able to hit Mikey going up the chain, as he's the big "reward" card in black for Pod decks. I'm not sure that Bloodgift Demon is even the best card for that slot, but I think it should be a creature nonetheless.
I try to avoid the "dies to removal" argument, but I think it's a valid concern when you're paying 5+ mana in an environment dominated by a lower curve (like mine, and many others here). For Bloodgift, his ability to dodge some removal (average burn spells, nonblack removal) isn't enough of an incentive to bother for a body I find just acceptable and an effect that looks ripe for getting feel-bads when he dies before it can trigger. Between Bloodgift and Phyrexian Arena, I'd rather run the Arena every time, and even then I'd probably rather run Painful Truths; the thing here is that, at least with the arena and truths, I'm guaranteed my card draw and it's very unlikely I'll have that disrupted. With the Bloodgift, he's too much liability for not enough payoff; if I'm slotting up card draw, I want it to really be card draw. It's all a very format-sensitive question of course, but I think expensive creatures need to be either very impressive/cool in their slot (Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief) or very efficient (Reveillark) to be worth casting, and that gets more true the lower you push your curve. I'd never draft Bloodgift in my format because it would be too slow and too low-impact to be worth that much mana, but Ob Nix, I'd happily throw into many a black deck.
Some good options for black that draw at 4 CMC:
And a commander card that I'm not too crazy about, but the power level is certainly there:
And don't forget Dusk urchins at 3 CMC.
And a commander card that I'm not too crazy about, but the power level is certainly there:
And don't forget Dusk urchins at 3 CMC.
Swapped the flying demon out to make room for the walking demon. I'm running Phyrexian Arena anyway.
Disciple of Bolas has worked somewhat well for me, although the body is quite underwhelming.
Disciple of Bolas has worked somewhat well for me, although the body is quite underwhelming.
Aoret
Developer
Write in candidate:
also, re: arena, I've been reeeeally happy with my decision to cut it for a second Dark Confidant. I know they're not really the same card (I think they're not even close to as similar as they look on face value), but I find Confidant just results in more interesting situations.
Priest of the blood rite can be recurred with Alesha, who smiles at death. Nifty.
I like Skirsdag High Priest more than those.
Also, I still don't have any Dark Confidant as I a) thought he'd be too strong for a 2drop (see my brainstorm dilemma) and b) don't have the money right now and I don't want to proxy everything. The same goes for Snapcaster Mage, Cryptic Command and Mystic Confluence so far, they're all cards which are fun and powerful but cost a lot of money.
btw sigh I just realized that's One Punch Man on your avatar. The first anime I'm watching IN AGES.
Also, I still don't have any Dark Confidant as I a) thought he'd be too strong for a 2drop (see my brainstorm dilemma) and b) don't have the money right now and I don't want to proxy everything. The same goes for Snapcaster Mage, Cryptic Command and Mystic Confluence so far, they're all cards which are fun and powerful but cost a lot of money.
btw sigh I just realized that's One Punch Man on your avatar. The first anime I'm watching IN AGES.
Bloodgift Demon is EDH gold, not as great in Cube because dies to removal is very real. You can't afford to wait a whole turn for a payoff once you're that late into most matches, you're looking for a way to finish. I'd definitely go with Nixilis in that matchup, he does a ton of work and your opponent will have to expend resources to deal with him buying you a turn or two to set up for the finish.
Aoret
Developer
That's fair, totally respect that choice. That said, I do wish I could sell you on proxying up the cards you do want to run (any of them where you don't have power level concerns). To me this is a very natural extension of the breaking singleton argument. If you've already gone through the (considerable amount of!) work to identify that your environment wants a card, why would you let anything prevent you from putting that card in? Whether it be that you're already running one, or that you simply can't afford a real copy of it? A similar argument can be leveled at spoiler cards - why would I ever wait for an effect to actually be available in paper when the idea exists for me to print out in high quality? If the concern is just that it makes your cube kinda ghetto, foil proxies are a great option as well
On another tangent entirely, I'm interested in your comments re: power level between confidant and arena. I've gone back and forth over the years on which I felt was stronger. I do think that it's somewhat format dependent (i.e. amount of lifegain available vs curve of the environment). Atm though I kinda think the static life loss and more difficult to remove typing is stronger than having a 2 power body on the board and the ability to shut the effect off. Ultimately I just decided that the higher interactivity of the confidant was more desirable regardless of which card is more powerful. Still, since we're on the subject, I'm curious how others view the two cards.
Write in candidate:
also, re: arena, I've been reeeeally happy with my decision to cut it for a second Dark Confidant. I know they're not really the same card (I think they're not even close to as similar as they look on face value), but I find Confidant just results in more interesting situations.
I'm interested in both parts of this. Firstly, how have I managed not to see Priest before today? He looks like he plays better in Pod/Sac than Demon while sitll providing the body, and that's sorta what I'm looking for.
SOLD!
Secondly, I'm a huge fan of Dark Confidant in my cube, and I can't imagine having access to a second one wouldn't be crazy powerful. I prefer having Confidant in my decks over Arena, but I tend to draft R/B/W aggro or Aristocrat style decks that would prefer the cheaper cost and appreciate the 2/1 body (plus he's Human!). Confidant is a huge priority for those decks, in my opinion. Giving aggro decks a second copy might be too much, as slower/bigger/control decks certainly want the effect too and are "mana-curved" out of being able to play Confidant.