General Polycubing and packages

[japahn]

That sounds quite easy to do in Python:

• Use the csv standard library to read/write from a spreadsheet (alternatively read an .xls or from Google Docs to maintain formatting, there's an API for that). Read the spreadsheet to an array of slots, where each slot is an array of card names..

• import csv
  with open('polycube.csv', 'rb') as csvfile:
    pool = [row for row in csv.reader(csvfile)]

• Generate the next drafts pool by selecting a random card for each slot.

  import random
  next_draft_list = [random.choice(slot) for slot in pool]

• To find the swaps:

  from collections import Counters
  previous_draft = Counters(previous_draft_list)
  next_draft = Counter(next_draft_list)
  cards_to_remove = previous_draft - next_draft
  cards_to_add = next_draft - previous_draft
   
  print 'Cards to remove: %s' % cards_to_remove
  print 'Cards to add: %s' % cards_to_add

• previous_draft_list will need to be saved and loaded, you can save to a csv too for consistency or use pickle.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Which would you guys like more, a multicolor PW slot or a multicolor manland slot?

 

[Chris Taylor]

Which would you guys like more, a multicolor PW slot or a multicolor manland slot?

Walker. I think the better way to multi-slot manlands is to swap them with other fixing, like sometimes one of the watery graves is a tar pit instead.

I don't see a huge reason to limit the number of manlands in your environment, other than that basically they all enter tapped. Even in my cube with all instant speed removal costing 3+, it was never a problem.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Walker. I think the better way to multi-slot manlands is to swap them with other fixing, like sometimes one of the watery graves is a tar pit instead.

I don't see a huge reason to limit the number of manlands in your environment, other than that basically they all enter tapped. Even in my cube with all instant speed removal costing 3+, it was never a problem.

That's an interesting idea, but... I'm kind of all in on fetches right now, not really in the market for removing fetchables at random.

 

[Chris Taylor]

That's an interesting idea, but... I'm kind of all in on fetches right now, not really in the market for removing fetchables at random.

Yeah landfall does kinda change this doesn't it.
I was thinking like a flex slot that was like 6 watergy graves and a tar pit, for eg

 

[Jason Waddell]

Yeah landfall does kinda change this doesn't it.
I was thinking like a flex slot that was like 6 watergy graves and a tar pit, for eg

Yes, I know what you mean, but if we're going to give it a 1 in 7 shot, I'd be more inclined to open up a new slot with 7 manlands in it. I'm looking to clear out a couple slots anyways, just looking for the best way to reallocate them.

 

[Chriskool]

Stupidly was posting in jason's cube thread...

I've been thinking a little on the topic of manlands/multicolor in relation to the polycube: what would it look like if the cube had some level of variable slots as it does now and then variable 1-3 modules? This idea is born of some discussion of individual card interaction in the "imperfect imbalance" thread and some of the narrow cards present in the variable slots.

Without going into too much detail (on phone), I'd imagine something like:

1) cut X variable slots (many multicolor, preferably niche cards/low cmc cards but at least 1 from each monocolor)

2) divide X free slots in Y groups (of Z cards) to determine how many modules are brought in and how many cards they contain (extreme example: cut 44 cards, have 4 modules of 11 cards)

3) design at least Y+1 modules. These modules are color imbalanced and are designed on a theme. They feature several multicolor cards and lands of one color pair (or maybe are slanted toward a monocolor like black with an Urborg, 4 filter lands and some cards with BBB in the mana cost). Some "hate" cards in other colors are also included. The modules cannot share a primary color combination with one another to prevent overlap (Example: Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas; Baleful Strix; Creeping Tar Pit; Reclamation Sage; Kataki, War's Wage, Smash to Smithereens; 3 juicy artifacts; Dimir Signet)

Been working with Jason's primary cube and trying to apply this idea to better illustrate it: no noticeable progress yet. I like the idea of the variable slots being bundles of interactive cards, but I am concerned that since the current variable slots are a lot of variations on a particular type of card (e.g. countermagic or mass-removal burn) that I will have to really break down the cube by CMC and functionality before bundle-slots can be freed.

Additionally, even creating the bundles has been a bit beyond me (beyond sketches) due to the cube's current construction. I am trying to take inspiration from your current themes, but again, I need to really break down things before I feel I have more than notes-while-I-should-be-doing-productive-things-for-my-employer... Also, I want to look at ahadabans's modular cube for more ideas on module creation.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I think complexity is a concern. My cube is already super complex with the polycubing (we probably could use a better name) and ULD. Personally I've always leaned towards building new cubes to explore new design territory rather than sub in different themes randomly from week to week. If I were to do it, and wanted to sub in 44 cards each draft, I'd just build a 316 and fill in the rest, rather than replacing cards at random.

 

[Phinneas]

I'm curious if anyone has taken this concept further? I was going to start a thread about Format Drafting...wherein you have a 360 card cube...an 8 person draft...with a 240 cards from the cube comprising the "core" list.

At the beginning of the draft...each player publicly selects a 15 card "packet" to add to the format pool. These are drafted publicly so that players have some ability to sculpt a format, and everyone knows what the ingredients are. This also has the added benefit of players designing particular synergies.

Notably, this idea would cause imbalance in the colour distribution, or in the cmc spectrum. Rather than look at that as a drawback, I think it would lead to some interesting draft experiences, as long as everyone knew in advance about the limitations of the format.

I have some questions for the community...

1. Packets - How should the packets be arranged? By archetype? By set? Or some other trait.

2. Quantity - How many packets do you think would be enough? Some multiplier of 8 people? Something in the range of 24 packets? More?

3. Core List - I'm under the assumption that the core list is a good idea. Allowing me to reinforce basic lines of play in each colour. Maybe this isn't necessary though? I'm not certain, what do you guys think?

The aim of this project is to push the boundaries on cube design, and see if we can't add an additional layer of variability/player decision, without to heavily disrupting the existing draft experience. (ie. Drafting the format, is just the same as any other draft rounds, you're just making picks in a circle)

 

[ahadabans]

You can check out my cube post for more details on how I did it, but I'm currently running an approach I call modular cube. I have 5 modules, one for each color. In each module, I have a wedge and a shard represented (and where the color overlaps, that is the "color" of the module). Each module is 90 cards, so if you did a two person traditional draft, you'd see every card from the module. Each module focuses on 2-3 themes that overlap heavily between colors so that there is competition during drafting. My initial version had opposing themes and drafts were lacking conflict because each person was just drafting their deck.

Advantages:
1. Allows you to run more than 360 cards and draft with less than 8 people and mimic an 8 man - 360 draft experience.
2. Either a theme is represented or it's not. If you see a +1/+1 incentive card, you can be sure the theme is supported. Versus random card selection where you might be drafting into something that is underrepresented.
3. With 4 people (the typical number I see), you get huge replay value. Drafting the white and blue modules is 100% different than drafting red and black or red and green. Even white and black looks nothing like white + anything else. There is overlap between modules of course, but each module is a relatively unique experience.

Disadvantage:
1. Building this is twice as hard. Each module has to stand on it's own. So it needs removal, lands that support the color combinations, etc.
2. Because a module overlaps on one color, the card pool is heavily slanted towards that color. If you draft the blue module, it is next to impossible not to draft a Ux deck because about 40% of the cards are blue. In practice, this is awkward when drafting one module alone. But once you get to two or more modules, it feels less forced (3 modules is best but 2 is OK). Still, after doing several of these I feel this is a net negative overall. I don't like being forced into a color.
3. Setup is much more time consuming as you have to separate cards by module. That seriously sucks after a 6-man.

 

[Phinneas]

Any thought put into the idea of keeping a core list, and shaving down the size of the modules? It feels like this would solve many of the Disadvantages, while maintaining the Advantages.

I'm going to go scope out your list, and then pick your brain about your experience. If you're willing.

 

[ahadabans]

Very happy to share my experiences and thoughts on this. My group does not draft frequently, so I have probably only 6 drafts total with this module format. I've done a ton of testing on my own, but nothing replaces people actually drafting at a table.

On the idea of a core list and adding cards, that was how I first I tried to approach it, but it was even harder to build that way. I ultimately couldn't do it in a way that I was happy with. The other problem that has no solution in my mind is drafts with fewer than 8 people. If you try to represent each color combination equally, you dilute your card pool and really hurt deck quality. There are simply not enough cards in the draft to properly represent all colors without forcing janky 3+ color decks. This is where modularizing and focusing on one color (in my case a wedge and a shard) makes it so you have strong support for color combinations. Disadvantage it you start forcing one or more of the base colors, which I don't really like.

Someone else I think tried doing all colors but making some guilds undraftable. So you had a cube that was enemy guilds only or whatever. Another way is to remove a color entirely. Green/White have some overlaps and you probably don't need both honestly. I can't bring myself to do that and I'm pretty certain half my group would consider a cube built that way as an abomination. But YMMV.

EDIT: My cube tutor list is out dated and my individual modules on cube tutor are empty right now. I will update them tonight though with my current list. A lot has changed but the basic idea has not.

 

[Phinneas]

I'm almost wondering if NOT worrying about colour distribution is the correct way to go. This came up with a friend who wanted to make a 'Graveyard Matters' cube. It quickly became apparent that there just weren't the level of cards in White and Red. So...he just...eliminated those colours.

It's a dramatic response to be certain, but the way I look at it is this.

1. 360 Modern Cube - This is the core list, we can play this if we want. It's balanced, well-designed, and takes a structured approach.
2. 360 Modular Cube - You'll see variance in power level for colours, as well as consistency issue, but the public drafting of the format can inform picks.

So if everyone selected Graveyard synergy modules...then...that's just the draft environment for that evening and everyone knows it. The Format Draft portion of the evening is interesting because it literally sculpts a different environment each time.

 

[ahadabans]

That's the general idea, yeah. Again, going back to how I'm working this (color modules), when you draft "blue" and "white" modules, you are going to see a heavy slant towards those two colors. And some guilds simply won't be represented at all (WG does not exist in the red module for example - there are no non-basics with that combination and no gold cards).

 

[Phinneas]

Exactly. Which makes me think that if you have a core list of staples (fetches, duals, core colour effects [path, lightning bolt, titans]) then you could use that 240 or whatever number to provide SOME structure to the environment. Also allows for smaller, more nuanced player decisions on the format front.

If you're only adding 15 cards to a pool then your pick will have some measure of attention to other players picks. If that makes sense.

 

[ahadabans]

It does, yes. I tried this approach early on but abandoned it primarily because I rarely have more than 4 drafters. So I already had watered down draft experiences and having a large core list does not solve that problem for me. If I consistently did 6-8 mans, I would have stuck with this angle longer because I like the concept a lot.

I would avoid truly poisonous packages though. Storm sounds like a good idea, and you can assemble a competitive version of said deck in cube. But if you have two people start drafting it, neither guy will have a playable storm deck. And if they don't figure out that they are being undercut really early in the draft, they will not be able to recover with a playable deck. Good drafters are probably going to be OK, but bad drafters are just going to end up shafted. My 2 cents.

Reanimator is a good package because the overlap with other cards is quite large. It works with delve, recursive aggro is a fan. Combo decks (lark/guide or loam/vortex). The list goes on and on. I'm generally in favor of as much graveyard interaction as possible. It's just a really fun mechanic and makes Magic that much more dynamic.

 

[Phinneas]

Perfect. I like making lists...see my post in the Cube Talk thread...but so the design principles for this would be...

1. Assume/Requires 6-8 Player Pods.
2. Accept Colour Imbalance.
3. Ensure Sufficient Overlap With Packages.

With respect to Storm, are the cards in the Storm package applicable enough to a Spells Matter deck? Would that provide sufficient overlap?

 

[ahadabans]

I'm a bad storm drafter, so the wrong person to ask. But it likely depends on how deep you go. Empty the Warrens is a playable card without heavy storm support. And it works in prowess decks. So something like that is totally fine IMO. Lion's Eye Diamond? Uh... I'm thinking that is utter trash in anything but the hardcore storm deck. Now, having one or two cards like that as "signals" for advanced drafters... that is a workable solution. But how successful that will be is entirely dependent on the skill of your drafters. My group is super casual and it would epic fail over here.

Experimentation is likely going to be the only way to find how how plausible a non-poisonous storm package would be in your cube with your players. I've seen a couple people on another forum defend this as doable, so I don't think it's impossible. But it's certainly a lot harder than trying to make a reanimator package work (which requires very little effort in my experience).

I'll reply to you in your cube post if you have specific questions about your list. At work right now, so may not be able to do that right away though.

 

[vennythekid]

I'm a bad storm drafter, so the wrong person to ask. But it likely depends on how deep you go. Empty the Warrens is a playable card without heavy storm support. And it works in prowess decks. So something like that is totally fine IMO. Lion's Eye Diamond? Uh... I'm thinking that is utter trash in anything but the hardcore storm deck. Now, having one or two cards like that as "signals" for advanced drafters... that is a workable solution. But how successful that will be is entirely dependent on the skill of your drafters. My group is super casual and it would epic fail over here.

Experimentation is likely going to be the only way to find how how plausible a non-poisonous storm package would be in your cube with your players. I've seen a couple people on another forum defend this as doable, so I don't think it's impossible. But it's certainly a lot harder than trying to make a reanimator package work (which requires very little effort in my experience).

I'll reply to you in your cube post if you have specific questions about your list. At work right now, so may not be able to do that right away though.

If fast mana is part of your core, I could see a storm package being viable. I think it requires the fast mana to be part of the core rather than in the package itself, and the storm package would be the tutors, finishers, and the "engine" peices (I.E. Past in Flames, Yog Will).

 

[Phinneas]

That's a great idea, as it's also a solution for any other fringe archetype that needs a little more support. You can jam some of the broad requirements in the core list, and then carve out a little more space with the modules themselves. I keep coming back to this same "sculpting" idea.

 

[ahadabans]

I agree with Venny. Fast mana is probably critical for storm to work. Fair mana generation simply can't power it out fast enough. Again though, I'm not an expert.

Back to Lion's eye though... that was a key card that this one dude kept coming back to. It only goes in storm. If no one takes it, you know the deck is open. It belongs in the storm module and it is how advanced drafters know when to go for it and don't end up with half a storm deck and go 0-3.

My 2 cents, making storm work is like expert level guitar hero. Not a lot of people can handle that mode. So if you put this in a casual group, you are just hurting your draft experience. Plain and simple. Guitar Hero 3 was a really bad game IMO because it assumed everyone was able to play expert on previous games so GRBS like Dragonforce was intended to be achievable for the average player.

The hell it was.

 

[safra]

LED is a good card that discards your hand for three mana. It's strongest in Storm because you only need the one last spell to win and the Constructed synergy with Infernal Tutor (cast "Infernal Tutor Holding Priority", crack LED in response, get business or Storm, typically another Infernal Tutor). In Cube, LED is a One With Nothing / Black Lotus (not Storm / Storm) split card. That's good in the module and very very niche outside of it. (you can still announce a spell going on the stack and crack LED to pay for it - have fun, judges)

I agree that you want fast mana to enable storm combo. You could probably get away with 2-mana rocks but it'll make a clunky archetype that much less reliable. Being able to draw into and cast your Moxen for extra Storm (or even just sandbag them) can be the difference between winning and losing. Brain Freeze is a little easier to support than Tendrils in Limited.

I don't think Storm combo and spells-matter are as close as you imagine, though there's definitely overlap. Prowess is an a+b mechanic, and Storm is a critical mass mechanic. If you don't cast 9 spells before Tendrils, you fizzle, oops. Getting a big/big lifelinker for 1W isn't the same deal because even nonlethal damage has a real effect on the game and doing it twice is much more feasible.

I'd go for it, but pick a set of Storm kills and work out what Storm Count they need to win and build backwards. 6 goblin tokens loses to a Deathrite Shaman, but 10 doesn't necessarily. Tendrils wants to kill as it resolves, Brain Freeze gives them an upkeep, etc. If you want ten-drils, you need access to 9 other spells the turn you go off. It's one of the reasons wheel effects are so good for the archetype but any cheap draw spells will help.


Remember - critical mass mechanic.

 

[ahadabans]

In my early Magic days, I loved combo win conditions and I went out of my way to build janky constructed decks around them. And I made a lot of bad decks and lost a lot of games but it was quite enjoyable when something did work especially if it was just ridiculous (Myojin of Cleansing Fire + Biorhythm .... don't ask).

There were moments early on in my cube experiment where I very much wanted to support that type of deck building and capture that vibe, but it's ultimately problematic because of exactly what Safra just said - many of these are critical mass mechanics. Others (kiki-pestermite) either autowin the game or they do nothing. And that is the fundamental problem with combo in general. It's about exploiting the game in a largely non-interactive way. It might work - from the perspective of winning games of Magic - but is it fun for anyone other than the pilot? And it's largely poisonous because you need all the pieces or X number of cards to build a successful deck like this. Which means guys usually fail to build a playable deck. Or they build a deck that goldfishes the table with zero interaction.

I don't want to discourage any form of creative exploration. You want to try Storm, I say go for it. And if you manage a version that isn't polarizing I'd love to hear the details. Again, I am somewhat empathetic to this cause.

 

[Phinneas]

All very good points, I'm working on a package but it may just be not viable. There's a post up in the Cube Lists forum that has the packages that I'm currently tinkering with.

24 in total, we'll see how they develop.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Some rotation suggestions:
Put Karn and Kozilek in a rotation with each other.
Make 5 of your fetchlands rotate, since you've got 25.
Add the Blue Confluence in a rotation with Cryptic (tor the rotation of misc. counterspells)
Try Silugmar's Command in the UB rotation.
I would add a second Young Pyromancer and a second Abbot of Keral Keep to your red 2-drop rotation.
Definitely rotate Garruks. Try two slots with all three Garruks (although I hate Primal Hunter, personally).

If you want another multi-colored slot, you could take all the fun multi-colored Planeswalkers and rotate them:

Bump