There also seems to be multiples of some cards in that cube. I looked for a list, but naturally I got linked from google to the legacy cube from 2014. If the wizards website wasn't so ass backwards I'd look harder. anybody got a link?
General CBS
- Thread starter James Stevenson
- Start date
http://magic.wizards.com/en/MTGO/articles/archive/magic-online/legacy-cube-cardlist
Of note is that LSV was playing in a draft league, so there were multiple pods running in parallel and intermingling.
CML
Contributor
+1 can't touch this
-2 punished for not touching this
-8 no touching
so basically multiples of cards
Hmm. I thought both he and his opponent had oath of nissa in those games
That is true, but it's because you can play against people from other draft pods in the new Cube League format (which is great, by the way).
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Looks like magiccards.info is updating again, Kaladesh and Inventions are up and scanned in their usual high quality glory.
I guess a substitute team stepped in?
I guess a substitute team stepped in?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I read somewhere that the owner has been a slow updates around the summer holidays in previous years as well. Looks like the summer holidays lasted for a while this year
Dom Harvey
Contributor
I'm looking for creatures that offer substantial board presence/card advantage but not via ETB spam (so you can answer them properly with removal). Good examples are Tireless Tracker, Kalitas, Whisperwood Elemental, Meren, but other colours (especially blue/red) would be nice.
Did anyone else have the pleasure of seeing someone go off with Paradoxical Outcome in Vintage this weekend? Card is delightfully nutty. Makes me want to try to get it to work in Cube somehow, or at least to figure out a way to replicate that bomby, tons of spells in a turn feel.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Aw, no link?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Translation: "we can't change the card-backs".
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I agree. Someone must have brought the idea up though, right? I mean, it isn't that out of the box?
I think the real problem is that 's flavor-mechanics, like mill, are too outside the game's normal method of operation to exist within the game proper, and alternative flavor-mechanic directions are guilty of the same sin, wanting to seize upon 's knowledge-seeking and 's anything-to-win style, which leads to cards that would make the gameplay fun for only the player if costed to a playable point. I feel the true failing is in the flavoring of blue as the "knowledge color", because the whole game hinges heavily on the library, a "wizard knowledge-pool", but that's a concept I'm not going to ramble about right now..
As for, the excuse bandied about most often for why the pair doesn't really feel that tied together is "well actually it's stompy and stompy is fun cuz some people just like playing big dumb creatures to win!!", which tries to pretend the problem with the pair is actually its defining point: big dumb creatures. Why is this a problem? Because it doesn't mean anything. Every color has and uses big dumb beaters; it's not really game-defining in any way. If the game was remade and they deliberately put more beef in , I could see this "Stompy" definition take root and flourish, but as it stands, just about any color or color pair can get good, playable, big beaters. Look at where standard was for a while, with Siege Rhino. Or how about when Pearl Lake Ancient was the game-deadening big dumb control creature win-con? I could go on and on, but the point is, doesn't have a monopoly on playable big dumb beaters, and the concept is too generic to be defining without said monopoly. I think that's why the pair struggles often in cube; every color gets big dumb (or big busted) creatures, so 's "stand-out definition" applies to virtually any pairing.
Anyway, my coffee's ready, so that's about the end of my little rant. I draw a lot of inspiration from Mark Rosewater's game design philosophy bites, but I think he's fooling himself on how well his lore around the color pie holds up; that, or he's failing it by not delivering on mechanics and themes that actually represent it.
's flavor-mechanics, like mill, are too outside the game's normal method of operation to exist within the game proper, and alternative flavor-mechanic directions are guilty of the same sin, wanting to seize upon 's knowledge-seeking and 's anything-to-win style, which leads to cards that would make the gameplay fun for only the player if costed to a playable point. I feel the true failing is in the flavoring of blue as the "knowledge color", because the whole game hinges heavily on the library, a "wizard knowledge-pool", but that's a concept I'm not going to ramble about right now..As for
, the excuse bandied about most often for why the pair doesn't really feel that tied together is "well actually it's stompy and stompy is fun cuz some people just like playing big dumb creatures to win!!", which tries to pretend the problem with the pair is actually its defining point: big dumb creatures. Why is this a problem? Because it doesn't mean anything. Every color has and uses big dumb beaters; it's not really game-defining in any way. If the game was remade and they deliberately put more beef in , I could see this "Stompy" definition take root and flourish, but as it stands, just about any color or color pair can get good, playable, big beaters. Look at where standard was for a while, with Siege Rhino. Or how about when Pearl Lake Ancient was the game-deadening big dumb control creature win-con? I could go on and on, but the point is, doesn't have a monopoly on playable big dumb beaters, and the concept is too generic to be defining without said monopoly. I think that's why the pair struggles often in cube; every color gets big dumb (or big busted) creatures, so 's "stand-out definition" applies to virtually any pairing.Anyway, my coffee's ready, so that's about the end of my little rant. I draw a lot of inspiration from Mark Rosewater's game design philosophy bites, but I think he's fooling himself on how well his lore around the color pie holds up; that, or he's failing it by not delivering on mechanics and themes that actually represent it.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Basically. At least UB gets to be naturally powerful though, and that might be an obstacle to mechanical integration. The alternate idea for RG is "earth's anger" as demonstrated with cards like molten vortex, but they've never really capitalized on that. B/W is a pairing where the integration they've chosen is just really boring, basically brute forcing it with planeswalkers and removal, and token strategies that feel like bad white weenie or worse sacrifice than RB.
Part of the problem is that whenever they design their limited wheel, they tend not to be creative. R/G is there for new players, as the accessible dumb monsters that can win pair, while B/W has some janky life manipulation mechanic. They really have done little with color pair relationships since the original RGD set down the foundations.
Part of the problem is that whenever they design their limited wheel, they tend not to be creative. R/G is there for new players, as the accessible dumb monsters that can win pair, while B/W has some janky life manipulation mechanic. They really have done little with color pair relationships since the original RGD set down the foundations.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I like that he gave an answer, but none of the stuff in his answer is an objective argument against switching black and red around. Of course you can't "just" switch them around, the color wheel is carefully crafted after all. That doesn't mean it couldn't, or yes, even shouldn't be done though. To me and are more interesting color pairings than and , philosophically and mechanically speaking.
and are more interesting color pairings than and , philosophically and mechanically speaking.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I think you would have to first clarify why they should take such an invasive route over something simple, like tightening up the existing guild mechanics.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
You are not wrong, but the fact that they have found satisfying ways to connect blue to red and black to green, and have so far failed to do that at least for RG, and arguably for UB, is an indicator for a possibly more optimal color wheel. I did find skulk a satisfying keyword for the
color pair, and I do enjoy playing decks in my cube, so that's something. At the same time, I don't think adds a lot of relevant stuff to the game that couldn't do. Both color pairs can feel very similar in their controlling shell. If anything, feels considerably deeper as a color pair. Anyway, I think it would be fun if they tried this out for a block