General Beginner Mistakes

[Onderzeeboot]

Maybe for recent baby formats for babies. We're cubing! Path is a pretty fair card in modern and this format is cooler than that one.
Also you are never getting ahead by thoughtseizing. What you've done is put yourself behind by 1 mana and 2 life hoping the card you took is worth that much in future adjustment in cards, tempo, life, etc more niche judgements.

The way they oversimplify everything and talk to people like children really bothers me, but I guess you can't be comprehensive in one fricken article so I should repeat to myself it's just a show and I should really just relax.

I think you're taking away the wrong point from this article. It's not that they can't balance a format around high-powered removal cards like Swords to Plowshares and Thoughtseize, it's that the power level and type of creatures (and other removal cards) needed to balance the format around that removal creates less interesting gameplay. Highly efficient removal necessitates Titan-level six-drops to ensure its worth paying six mana for a creature on the one hand and a high density of hexproof, shroud and protection to fight said removal on the other hand. I think it's great that they're moving away from that, because I'm sure as heck not looking for hexproof, protection and Titan-level fatties to fill my cube with.

Also, claiming that you are not getting ahead with Thoughtseize is mind numbing to me. You are neutering your opponent's hand and game plan by taking the card that can most hurt you depending on the game state, at minimal costs.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The reason they listed thoughtseize is that it can be a 1 mana answer to any specific problem.

I always rest a little easier when I have Thoughtseize in my deck because I know that it represents at least a possible answer to nearly anything my opponent can throw at me.

Thoughtseize is, yes, a very dynamic card; but as it regards the article's subject matter, that aspect was what they were referencing.

 

[MCMcEmcee]

Also, claiming that you are not getting ahead with Thoughtseize is mind numbing to me. You are neutering your opponent's hand and game plan by taking the card that can most hurt you depending on the game state, at minimal costs.

That's a fairly flawed view. 1 mana, 2 life, and a card to your opponent's card and information is a very real loss in tempo; also topdecking Thoughtseize is the worst and is a major concern in close games. "You are neutering their hand" but your hand is pre-neutered with a card that doesn't affect the board or catch you up when behind. It's still a powerful card but it generally causes you to fall behind, which means either your other cards need to be powerful enough to make up for the tempo loss or are worth the tempo/card to make sure they stick, or that you managed to screw up their plan enough that it balances out.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

That's a fairly flawed view. 1 mana, 2 life, and a card to your opponent's card and information is a very real loss in tempo; also topdecking Thoughtseize is the worst and is a major concern in close games. "You are neutering their hand" but your hand is pre-neutered with a card that doesn't affect the board or catch you up when behind. It's still a powerful card but it generally causes you to fall behind, which means either your other cards need to be powerful enough to make up for the tempo loss or are worth the tempo/card to make sure they stick, or that you managed to screw up their plan enough that it balances out.

And that view, too, is flawed. 2 life is negligible, it's mana cost means you can do something on turn 1, or do multiple things on turn 3-4 if you're the aggro deck, and you're preemptively removing the best card your opponent could play against you. How much more efficient do you want your removal spells to get? Or do you not want to play removal spells?

 

[CML]

well, you always board out thoughtseize in Modern BGx mirrors for those very reasons, so there's that

on the other hand, the card is very good (obviously) and standard decks never board it out against even super-aggressive Red, so I guess the life loss isn't quite enough. it is very good at making sure you don't fall behind, though i'm sure this is a result of every standard deck having quite low power level and being susceptible to even a small amount of disruption.

i was surprised thoughtseize was so corrosive to current standard, because i'm used to it in Legacy and Modern, where it does god's work punching combo bitches in the nuts. but yeah it's a little much right now.

to bring things back to Cube, I think you always want to high-pick and main-deck Thoughtseize, Inquisition and Duress, in any black deck. They're already fantastic and versatile cards, and their efficiency -- giving you something to do turn 1 -- makes them A LOT better.

 

[MCMcEmcee]

Thoughtseize gets boarded out in black mirrors in Standard a fair amount of the time and usually comes out against aggro/burn unless you have nothing better to replace it.
Part of Thoughtseize's place in Standard is that temple/shock/basic manabases leads to a lot of decks missing a beat early on anyways, so you end up even in tempo when they have to play a tapped land anyways a lot of the time, and people have to play individually powerful cards so you usually take a good card and you get to protect your powerful play.

Like Thoughtseize is way more powerful protecting a big play than trying to stop a big play; Thoughtseize out of ANT vs. Stoneblade is going to lead to more wins than Thoughtseize out of Stoneblade vs. ANT. If you are playing Thoughtseize because you have the fear, that's not nearly as good.

As for removal, I prefer actual removal that deals with their card after they've spent their time and mana, which means I can spend my time and mana advancing my plan more often.

 

[Lucre]

I think you're taking away the wrong point from this article. It's not that they can't balance a format around high-powered removal cards like Swords to Plowshares and Thoughtseize, it's that the power level and type of creatures (and other removal cards) needed to balance the format around that removal creates less interesting gameplay. Highly efficient removal necessitates Titan-level six-drops to ensure its worth paying six mana for a creature on the one hand and a high density of hexproof, shroud and protection to fight said removal on the other hand. I think it's great that they're moving away from that, because I'm sure as heck not looking for hexproof, protection and Titan-level fatties to fill my cube with.

Also, claiming that you are not getting ahead with Thoughtseize is mind numbing to me. You are neutering your opponent's hand and game plan by taking the card that can most hurt you depending on the game state, at minimal costs.

I don't think you read me right! Your reply didn't really deal with any of the ideas I had when I wrote that post. Maybe I need to explain myself further.

1) My reply about how it applied to baby formats was more or less just for grillo. I think it's fine to sculpt your standard format around baby ideas and strong policy, though I hope they do find time to ease up on it from time to time. To me it seems dorky to cite an article about development's preferences for standard when in broad sweeping discussions about cube format, something that often more closely resembles either legacy or limited. I guess it depends on what you're going for, but I think I was just sick of having this argument, we know having strong removal present in our MOSTLY SINGLETON format isn't the same as having broad access to it in a constructed format where it's a much bigger impact per single high EV spell included. I also know for damn sure that having doomblade in cube don't keep me from playing no reasonable 4/5/6 drops. I may like those cards less inherently, I might feel more comfortable if they somehow replaced themselves, but most of the time cube decks are very threat based these days and removal just plain don't attack, you dig? Anyway I gone and did what I didn't wana do and started rehashing this dumbass tired conversation again.

2) My second point was to the tone of the article and more or less most of the design and development stuff wizards releases regarding "modern design" I know they don't think half a lick about eternal formats, and I won't get started on that. I'm just sick of the way they talk is all. I'm sure we can all recognize a little of that right?

3) Okay now to your response regarding Thoughtseize. You know I'm done having this conversation right? About tempo and removal? You know how I framed that post regarding thoughtseize? As a cry of contrition against folks who think of it like a "kill spell". Bah, even that term gets me going. I'm looking at the trade. Where did my trade get me? I know you can get ahead via thoughtseize, if you don't believe I know that then you can stop reading my posts now because I must me some kinda moron. I'm saying it's a bloody investment. It's cutting off potential value, at the cost of a bad trade for you. 1 mana and 1 card and 2 life, for one card, is usually a bad trade. Now maybe you have some amazing metric for comparison that evaluates across games, matches, draws, and mulligans, but when I'm looking at thoughtseize it's a card in my damn deck that trades 1 for 1 at a cost to me every fucking time, I gotta make that worth my time, I gotta think about that investment, because that god awful trade is gonna be staring me in the face for a lot of games. Expecting to neuter is so silly to me. I'm not gonna discuss my opinions on thoughtseize beyond how people relate to it as removal or a counter-spell, I was only dealing with that point. It's an amazing card and highly misunderstood. I could not even begin to deal with the hand visibility implications of it.

Sorry to have numbed your mind pal, I'll try to do less of that in future. Or you could just block me.
Ugh now I'm coming off like a prick, when I don't really mean that. I just don't like being misinterpreted and I don't like having to fight tired battles after being called out and feeling backfooted.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

1) My reply about how it applied to baby formats was more or less just for grillo. I think it's fine to sculpt your standard format around baby ideas and strong policy, though I hope they do find time to ease up on it from time to time. To me it seems dorky to cite an article about development's preferences for standard when in broad sweeping discussions about cube format, something that often more closely resembles either legacy or limited. I guess it depends on what you're going for, but I think I was just sick of having this argument, we know having strong removal present in our MOSTLY SINGLETON format isn't the same as having broad access to it in a constructed format where it's a much bigger impact per single high EV spell included. I also know for damn sure that having doomblade in cube don't keep me from playing no reasonable 4/5/6 drops. I may like those cards less inherently, I might feel more comfortable if they somehow replaced themselves, but most of the time cube decks are very threat based these days and removal just plain don't attack, you dig? Anyway I gone and did what I didn't wana do and started rehashing this dumbass tired conversation again.

Look, it’s clear that we don't see eye to eye on this issue. Condescending language is not necessary. I've been very clear that I have no interest in recreating a constructed feeling in my format, and if that’s a "baby idea" (whatever that means), I am perfectly happy with baby ideas, and I guess you will just have to deal with that. I've also been very clear that I agree that not every format necessarily benefits from such an approach (which was supported by the article), so it’s not as if I’m somehow attacking your format or cube ideas.

I like threat based, synergistic formats that feel more like traditional limited--you don't. That’s fine, and there is no reason for this to be a source of bickering or ugliness: just tolerate other people's formats, agree to disagree, and walk away. There is no reason to take any of this personally: we are in a niche forum, for a niche format, of a niche card game--at the end of the day, it’s not that important.

Anyways, I have nothing against you personally, and I hope we can put this unneeded ugliness aside.

 

[Eric Chan]

I'm going to put on my Mod Hat here, and agree with Grillo. This is a pretty small community, so there's no need to get up in each other's face over small differences in cube design philosophy like this. Lucas, I hate to say it, but calling everyone and everything a 'baby' just makes you look like one.

Cut out the derisive tone, and stick to talking about Magic. If you can't post something without being patronizing, cool off and post again later when you're not worked up into a frenzy.

 

[Lucre]

I wasn't saying grillos formats were for babies, I'm saying standard is one. It is required to be somewhat tempered due to it's flagship status. The only thing to do with grillo was criticizing using a standard article reinforce his point regarding removal. I was sick of the argument so I didn't expound upon it in that post and clearly I should have because here I am listening to myself backtrack. I felt like that article didn't accurately represent what sorts of decisions/ramifications we deal with here, and the way they talk about standard and "modern design" makes it sound like it's the only world anyone should oughta live in and it gets under my skin when people point to it, because it makes me feel like they're buying that. Grillo, remember in what you quoted, I said "they", I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about R&D.

Development knows it's problematic (for standard) when you know your opponent is always gonna have access to 4 doomblades and 4 diabolic edicts. Maybe that makes it all the easiest way to play and no one wants to play their rampaging baloths or auras anymore, but boy does that not have to be our problem. One copy of lifebane zombie in your cube is not gonna warp the environment the way the one instance of it in standard has.

And for the record I'm pretty big on threat based formats myself. Eric can tell you I've proposed doubling up on hybrid beaters a million times, or recommended extending his human theme to double confidants and xathrids. You guys are getting a very shallow impression of me because I don't post every time I agree with someone, I post when I hear a point of view under represented or I think there is some disparity between how I see things and how others do. Frankly it's damn hard to avoid playing a lot of solid threats in any kind of deck these days.

Dudes honestly I just found the article annoying if fascinating especially in the context of this conversation, and then days later I realize people had misunderstood my response, planting me in a fight I'm sick of and then called me mind numbing so I was (I hope understandably) kinda frustrated. I guess I didn't do any better of a job explaining myself. I apologize for the aggravation and frustration my lack of tact and cogency has brought you all, and for all the damned paragraphs too.

 

[CML]

Thoughtseize gets boarded out in black mirrors in Standard a fair amount of the time and usually comes out against aggro/burn unless you have nothing better to replace it.
Part of Thoughtseize's place in Standard is that temple/shock/basic manabases leads to a lot of decks missing a beat early on anyways, so you end up even in tempo when they have to play a tapped land anyways a lot of the time, and people have to play individually powerful cards so you usually take a good card and you get to protect your powerful play.

Like Thoughtseize is way more powerful protecting a big play than trying to stop a big play; Thoughtseize out of ANT vs. Stoneblade is going to lead to more wins than Thoughtseize out of Stoneblade vs. ANT. If you are playing Thoughtseize because you have the fear, that's not nearly as good.

As for removal, I prefer actual removal that deals with their card after they've spent their time and mana, which means I can spend my time and mana advancing my plan more often.

oh i dunno about that second graf. it is true the nut draw of modern BGx without Deathrite is discard into Bob, which is the same as discard into Rat in Standard. but i'd argue that it's a higher-impact play to take a Sneak Attack or a Pyromancer Ascension, so to speak, just because there are so many old-format combo decks that are strong against B/x decks but "can't beat a Thoughtseize." The decks that do run discard to protect are often very fast but unstable and unpopular -- Legacy storm (which favors Duress cuz lifeloss) is pretty bad right now (and in the abstract, IMO), Legacy Reanimator is sickeningly powerful and wildly unstable, and nobody plays B in modern twin just to take their Lilly. on the whole, i think your thought process is flawed, as Thoughtseize is interaction, and generally its being interaction will outweigh its effects from forcing the discard of their interaction. In other words, Thoughtseize is far better at unraveling synergies than it is at protecting them, and its being played overwhelmingly in fair decks attests to that.

in Cube the discussion isn't as interesting because it's just good at everything, which makes me think it's a design flaw -- people hate that it can "take anything," i.e. interaction isn't really interaction in the classic sense of two people playing off and against each other, if your opponent renders you completely helpless.

custom cube people: how would you guys fix Thoughtseize? i want both development and design solutions!

 

[Dom Harvey]

It's more oppressive in Constructed just because of the expectation of it - there are lots of decks that are 'powerful' but still unplayable because they fold to a turn 1 Thoughtseize. In Cube, even if you could construct a deck where that would be true it wouldn't be as much of a problem because there might be the deck with a Thoughtseize instead of definitely facing at least one deck with 4 Thoughtseize over the course of a tournament.

 

[CML]

It's more oppressive in Constructed just because of the expectation of it - there are lots of decks that are 'powerful' but still unplayable because they fold to a turn 1 Thoughtseize. In Cube, even if you could construct a deck where that would be true it wouldn't be as much of a problem because there might be the deck with a Thoughtseize instead of definitely facing at least one deck with 4 Thoughtseize over the course of a tournament.

what are these decks dominic

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Dudes honestly I just found the article annoying if fascinating especially in the context of this conversation, and then days later I realize people had misunderstood my response, planting me in a fight I'm sick of and then called me mind numbing so I was (I hope understandably) kinda frustrated. I guess I didn't do any better of a job explaining myself. I apologize for the aggravation and frustration my lack of tact and cogency has brought you all, and for all the damned paragraphs too.

I was calling the statement mind numbing, not you Lucas. Just because people (and I do mean people in general, not pointing fingers here) can sometimes say moronic things doesn't mean they're morons either (okay, some really are, but that's besides the point).

Also, just because the article mainly talks about standard doesn't mean you can't apply the concepts to other formats, including cube. I don't run both Path to Exile and Swords to Plowshares for a reason. I don't mind the occasional powerful removal spell (by the way, the fact that Path to Exile wheeled last draft is also mind numbing to me even though none of my drafters are), but if all you run is high-powered removal, your cube will have to adapt in the same way WotC had to adapt standard: i.e. you have to run powerful etb creatures, hexproof, protection and Titan-level six-drops if you want your creatures to have some impact. Conversely, when you cut back on powerful removal (and hexproof and protection), you are able to run interesting but less powerful (in the abstract) creatures like Liliana's Reaver, because a creature then doesn't need to either have immediate impact before it will invariably bite the proverbial dust or be nigh untouchable. Imho that's an environment worth striving for, and that's why the article resonated with me.

I am also decidedly less bothered by the tone of the article than you are. To me it doesn't come across as pedantic or narrow-minded at all. They're talking about a specific format and the decisions they make regarding that format, and I think there's some lessons we can take away from that article and apply to our own favorite format. Indeed, one copy of Lifebane is not going to warp our cube the way it can warp Standard, but redundant copies of highly efficient removal will affect your cube in the same way a single piece of powerful removal will affect standard.

 

[Dom Harvey]

anything like Ad Nauseam/Hive Mind, christopher

 

[CML]

oh sure in modern. i dunno if that's the best example though because ad naus-based decks in legacy are some of the stronger combo decks against discard and kinda blow against counters, so it's hard to argue it's an intrinsic property of Thoughtseize, harder still to argue that Thoughtseize doesn't increase deck diversity in both formats by giving non-U a good way to interact with da goldfish

 

[Tom]

Mistakes I made as a beginner:
1) Not enough support for aggro. It's temping to put in a bunch of "good" or "cool" cards that often lean towards the heavier side of the mana curve. Lots of little two drops may not look as impressive as some bomby rare 6 drops, but your cube needs aggro or it becomes one-dimensional.
2) Not enough utility. Following the same idea, Naturalize doesn't seem all that impressive but your cube needs answers.

I also agree with all the other stuff you guys are saying: signets, sol ring, too much gold, not enough fixing, too many cards, etc.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

What do we mean with too many cards? Just cube sizes swelling up?

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Yup. The smaller your cube, the easier it is to support archetypes. The bigger it is, the more likely it is key pieces of archetypes don't show up in a draft, and the more likely it is the depth just isn't there to support an archetype.

 

[Lucre]

I feel like it's wiser for me to just sit this one out at this point, I don't want to sound derisive, misrepresent myself, correct anyone, fight old battles, be the bad guy again or go on and on like a crazy person.

It just isn't worth it. I don't see anything new coming from me explaining what I was and wasn't referring to etc.
Standard is great, many of them have been, and there's tonnes to learn from it.
That article was interesting and as I said I'm sure I came away from it with something.

At the end of the day I feel like it's just my resting frustration with people who are very attached to their understanding of "new world order" or what wizards does and doesn't do and for what reasons. I've had wizards articles shoved in my face, or seen it done to other people online so many times and now I'm probably just prejudiced against any argument that levels that sort of ammunition, especially when I feel like I'm looking at an ill fit, or it's seems needlessly exclusive to me. Clearly it also just rubbed me the wrong way.

I guess I just get a little too eager to respond when folks misunderstand me or attribute an agenda to me. It feels kinda like one in the same from this end. So I'll apologize again and leave you to your discussion.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

No hard feelings

 

[CML]

including stuff that is not main-deckable because it has utility is one contention of mine!