General Archetype layering

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
This is kind of a rough idea I've gotten from drafting people's cubes, but it sort of revolves around the ways that color pairs overlap with one another to create wedge/shard relationships that foundationally support each individual color pair identity in the wedge/shard.

For example, these cards in a green section:




Lately I've been drafting cubes where the mana dork section has been curtailed, and finding it very frustrating, as (in most higher power formats) they are fairly essential to the U/G tempo decks I like to draft. Not having them present is very close to just giving up on the existence of autonomous UG decks (which I will concede, many cube designers have done), as those decks wish to get ahead on mana development starting turn 1, so as to be able to cast seizable midrange threats, while still leaving up mana for counters.





Than when I go to draft the B/G ramp-amation decks in the format, this is again frustrating.




The purpose of cards like servitude or dread return is to provide a powerful reanimation engine that still requires synergy, but because the foundational mana dorks have been stripped, it undermines the engine that is supposed to be powering the deck. This also applies for the "to the hand" recursion pieces:



These tend to be slower decks, that care about their life total, and are not looking for the "cannot block" aggro threats in black intended for the B/R deck.


The broad archetype identity of the B/G and U/G decks present in those formats, revolves around the presence of cheap creature ramp. In the U/G case, to be able to advance the board while keeping mana open, and in the B/G case here, to provide fodder for sacrifice based reanimation engines.

This also provides an outlet for the leftover sacrifice cards from the B/R deck, that want symmetry breaking, and may sometimes stumble into these slower decks.


I don't want this to come across purely as a PSA "run more elves in certain formats" (though it is partly that), but more about the way that parts of the cube interact with and interconnect with one another. Its clever design to be able to say in the broad strokes what each color pair is doing, than think of ways to efficiently use the cube space to facilitate each color pairs' strategy using common bedrock pieces.

Thats exactly what the elves in this scenario are supposed to be doing, and because the designer didn't recognize it, this has a rippling effect that undermines the presence of other cards that were included in the format and/or creates a demand for a third color to fill that negative space.

Another common wedge problem is in WBR, where the format supports an aggressive W/R aggro deck, aggressive B/R sacrifice deck, but can't support a B/W aggressive deck, because the entire reach component is centralized in red. It necessitates having good to great fixing, so that when a player stumbles into a W/B aggressive deck, they can splash red reach (aka why lingering souls is really a mardu card in cube).

At any rate, I am not quite sure where to go with this, other than that I am sure there are many other relationships like this in cube (which would be fun to identify), could exist (which would be fun to brainstorm), as well as voids that should be plugged (which would make a format more fun).
 
One approach I've used to increase deck diversity is not label each color as aggro or control. I try to provide aggro and control tool for all colors. Blue is skewed towards cheap counterspells and evasion to make it suitable for aggro and red is skewed towards control, with mass burn and long game engines.

I don't advocate that every cube should follow that, but I've found it a good rule of thumb and has a very positive effect on format depth. Plus, I love playing Ux aggro-control and Rx control.

I also follow this approach in non-emergent archetypes. I've devised 40-card modules that add a theme to the cube, and each draft one or two modules will be used. They contain the same theme in all colors, which mean adding ~10 two-color decks, and ~10 three-color decks with that theme. This was an evolution over my previous approach, in which I had two themes per module (for example, WUR spells + WBG enchantments). Compare that the latter spawns 6 two-color decks and 2 three-color decks, plus many color combinations become awkward to play (UB, UG, RG, RB).
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
One thing that I'll occasionally see in some of the pro magic player draft videos, is that they end up assigning sort of broad outlines, or loose framing, of color pairs. This is sort of reflective of the historical card pool, and what those combinations trend towards. Those relationships are so concrete that they tend to be more or less represented with the same structure within that narrow band of higher power cubes, in both practical terms, and in terms of drafter expectations.

Thats why, suddenly trimming the elf population might be well intentioned, but it undermines the direction that the entire rest of the card population in a shard or wedge was trending towards due to natural forces. Its also certainly relevant for any cube that is somewhat derivative of a certain power level card population. Most of the format restructuring we do has more to do with emphasizing the impact of outlying cards, that can change the style of decks capable of certain color pairs.

Sort of loose historical color pair identities from higher power formats:

RB: sticky aggro with burn // planeswalkers with removal and draw

RG: ramp up to red sweepers go over the top of anything still around // Big dumb monsters and ramp with planeswalkers

RU: burn for the small things, counters for the big things, big version has planeswalkers, small version has little spell trigger dudes.

RW: go wide aggro with burn

UG: ramp out big things, back up with counters and bounce.

GB: Play ETB fatties and reanimate for value with planeswalkers and ramp

GW: Big creatures with white removal, lots of ETBs

BW: always splash red aggro // evasive tokens with lifegain plus removal, black card draw, and planeswalkers

UB: Counters and mass removal control // little evasive flying dudes backed up by counters/bounce // if combo probably here because of tutors

UW: Flyers or evasive tokens backed by counterspells and bounce // Counters and mass removal control that always ends up actually being flyers backed up by counters

Restructuring that (in a somewhat natural manner) is good design space outside of looking for mythical cycles of lands to build a format around (not many, WOTC doesn't like printing interesting land cycles).
 
Top