General CBS

[LadyMapi]

Though supporting five color pairs is so 2019 — clearly the play is to support seven of them, excluding the three worst pairs).

...

More seriously, though, that's probably the correct play. It's interesting to observe that cutting a single color (or making it effectively colorless by using dual lands as basics - either/or) means that supporting every possible pair (6 in total) isn't that much trickier than only supporting Allied pairs (5 in total). Just swap the tricycles for the final pair's fixing lands, and you're pretty much there.

 

[Rusje]

in conclusion - most cube advice boils down to "make your cube more like mine" and, despite my best intentions, this has been no exception

This has been simultaneously the worst and best advice I have seen in a long time. Every playgroup has their own desires and own restrictions. This advice immediately assumes that your group has similar desires and restrictions than the other one. However, a well curated cube is hard to achieve. Often a non-fitting cube but one that is well curated is better than a badly executed cube which took into account the desires and restrictions of the group.

Back to the fixing question:
1) Does your group (or at least the weakest players) understand the power of fixing and are they willing to spend picks on it?
If no:
Put the fixing in the land box and allow them with some restrictions, e.g., 3 shocks, 2 fetches, 2 triomes.
If yes:
Do you want that the right colour pair is available?
If no:
Just throw the lands in the cube.
If yes:
A) use vouchers, e.g, a shock voucher or a colour shock voucher (only ones which are at least that colour).
B) use less colours/pairs in the cube.
C) something else?

If you know the answer to these questions, you still need to answer the amount of fixing the group desires. But this depends on the path you have chosen above.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

It's interesting to observe that cutting a single color (or making it effectively colorless by using dual lands as basics - either/or) means that supporting every possible pair (6 in total) isn't that much trickier than only supporting Allied pairs (5 in total). Just swap the tricycles for the final pair's fixing lands, and you're pretty much there.

I have contemplated this many times. The other variant of this you can do is the Basic Blues-approach, where you pick a color and make it effectively colorless. So in my unfinished cube's case, the basic land box contains Tundras, Underground Seas, Volcanic Islands, and Tropical Islands, rather than Plains, Islands, Swamps, Mountains and Forests. The cool thing is that all three of these approaches reduce the number of available color pairs to a number below 8. This increases draft tension (because more people are fighting over the same color pair) without leading to more wrecked drafts (because there are more cards available for each color pair), something I like a lot about my own cube.

 

[Rusje]

This has been simultaneously the worst and best advice I have seen in a long time. Every playgroup has their own desires and own restrictions. This advice immediately assumes that your group has similar desires and restrictions than the other one. However, a well curated cube is hard to achieve. Often a non-fitting cube but one that is well curated is better than a badly executed cube which took into account the desires and restrictions of the group.

Back to the fixing question:
1) Does your group (or at least the weakest players) understand the power of fixing and are they willing to spend picks on it?
If no:
Put the fixing in the land box and allow them with some restrictions, e.g., 3 shocks, 2 fetches, 2 triomes.
If yes:
Do you want that the right colour pair is available?
If no:
Just throw the lands in the cube.
If yes:
A) use vouchers, e.g, a shock voucher or a colour shock voucher (only ones which are at least that colour).
B) use less colours/pairs in the cube.
C) something else?

If you know the answer to these questions, you still need to answer the amount of fixing the group desires. But this depends on the path you have chosen above.

Today I tried the following variant on C. Ravnic and I had a small discussion on the old days and Ravnic suggested weak creatures but maybe stronger draw/scry cards paradigm to let the game have a slower pace but to prevent non-games. Since my main cube is urza block (sadly no scry) I came up with replacing the draw from the draw step with scry 1 then draw and the verdict is in.
Scry 1 then draw seriously removes the mana flood/screw (e.g. non games). Common side effects are that decks could run fewer lands (like legacy with brainstorm) and that splashing is easier. It also lowers the luck factor. The games became much tenser with the scry 1. Try it out, it is fun!

 

[ravnic]

In your Time Wipe example, I don't necessarily think that replacing wipe with Hallowed Burial is what enabled the Boros control deck. The deck probably already existed in the environment beforehand– someone just would have needed to use one of their Vistas to grab up a single island to enable the casting of the Wipe. It definitely requires more creativity and planning than just playing the good White control card in a W/R control deck, but I don't think having to splash for the powerful effect is inherently less exciting than being able to do it in-house with just two colors. After all, if a deck is only playing blue for a single five-drop game-ending spell, that's not really just another blue control deck. I certainly don't think having a fetchable Breeding Pool in a deck to make a single Bring to Light work is the same thing as a fully committal section with multiple blue spells. I think the same applies to the time-wipe scenario.

But they took the sweeper like pick 3 or so, so they probably would've picked more blue cards. And even if they wouldn't, I personally think the straight Boros control deck is cooler than RWu Control, but that's a matter of taste of course

Honestly, I don't even think this is true as a heuristic. Splashing to me seems like a function of players wanting to try something novel rather than just trying to force something powerful.

Sure. But don't you think, that if drafters were super computers only optimizing for winrate, they would splash more in a format with a wider power band? I'm not talking about going multiple colors generally, that is, as you stated correctly with your NEO and ELD examples, highly dependent on the fixing and incentives of a given format. I'm just talking about scenarios where you try to somehow get a couple black sources into your list for the bomby card you opened p3p1.

At a sufficiently high power level and fixing density, it's simply not possible to find mono-color cards "just as powerful" as the gold cards. Young Pyromancer and Dark Confidant are maybe their colors' best 2-drops, but they're no Kroxa. Oblivion Ring is good, but it's no Prismatic Ending or Leyline Binding. Tarmogoyf might be better than Territorial Kavu, but the Kavu trumps all the other mono- 2-drops.

As someone managing a much lower powered cube, I can just believe you, and I do, of course. And to cover all these eventualities, I said before, that it can have upsides to replace gold cards by monocolored ones if you can find worthy replacements. What is a worthy replacement, of course, is highly dependent on one's tastes and goals. Whether you are looking for power level, a unique effect or just have a particular pet card - I am totally aware that there are reasons for gold cards. There are also certain advantages to gold cards - or generally cards with tougher mana requirements - of course. Blue wouldn't show up as regularly in landfall decks if my Tatyova, Benthic Druid was mono green. And I'm cubing cards like Nantuk Shade or Nightveil Specter to lure people into monocolor.

I did just realize, that I could very easily find worthy replacements for half my gold cards in mono or colorless cards, and when I did this, the draft felt more dynamic and new decks emerged. I'm not smart enough to understand all the connections and nuances here, but it worked for me.

And all I wanted to do, after my personal success, was to animate people to make this thought exercise themselves; check whether they cube cards with limiting mana requirements for no good reason. It was a great level up for me, maybe it could be for someone else. That's my message and I'm sticking with it

 

[Nanonox]

Back to the fixing question:
1) Does your group (or at least the weakest players) understand the power of fixing and are they willing to spend picks on it?
If no:
Put the fixing in the land box and allow them with some restrictions, e.g., 3 shocks, 2 fetches, 2 triomes.

Another option could be to pick more cards during a draft (more packs or bigger packs). At some point you hope that a player sees playable #30 vs fixing land #2 and something clicks!

There are certain downsides to the approach, most notably that the best players will have better decks and better fixing. But if the weaker player has a level up moment where they consciously pick fixing over another playable, hopefully this is a level up moment that can carry over to the next drafts (this is probably multiple levels of wishful thinking, but I am an optimist ).

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Sure. But don't you think, that if drafters were super computers only optimizing for winrate, they would splash more in a format with a wider power band? I'm not talking about going multiple colors generally, that is, as you stated correctly with your NEO and ELD examples, highly dependent on the fixing and incentives of a given format. I'm just talking about scenarios where you try to somehow get a couple black sources into your list for the bomby card you opened p3p1.

I think it's too context dependent to say definitvely. The increase in win rate from casting the bomb would need to offset the loss in consistency from having to support a deck with more colors than intended for the format. The win rate advantage to playing fewer colors than a format's mana base can theoretically support due to less mana screw would need to be outstretched by the quality of the late draft bombs, which really can't be calculated in a vacuum.

Ultimately I think whether or not a Draft Supercomputer would be splashing cards is still going be a function of the quality and setup of fixing in a format regardless of the power band. A computer drafting famously wide-band set Crimson Vow might still only be splashing Hal and Alena, Partners and Wedding Announcement because the fixing in the set is so bad that any card under a 70% win rate when played probably isn't worth the effort. On the other hand, a computer drafting a tighter band set like Neon Dynasty might splash more often because of the way the fixing in the format is designed. Streets of New Capenna draft shows a situation where splashing extra colors in a broad power band format was usually worse for drafters than sticking to a two-color deck. Even though there were lots of powerful gold cards in the format and abundant fixing that could draw players into a third (or fourth) color, sticking to just two colors was often a good strategy. Being able to cast the premium common creatures like Civil Servant, Body Dropper, and Celestial Regulator on time was better than playing more colors for all but top rares. Consistency was able to beat the quality on a regular basis.

I understand these examples are somewhat specific while you're talking more about the abstract idea of splashing in general, but I think even in a broad power band format, win rate from splashing is a function of fixing quality and not power band. A format would need an unrealistically large power band before playing more colors than intended becomes the meta-strategy.

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Thanks for the reply; Train had a couple good follow-ups, so I only wanted to reply to this bit (emphasis mine).

At a sufficiently high power level and fixing density, it's simply not possible to find mono-color cards "just as powerful" as the gold cards. Young Pyromancer and Dark Confidant are maybe their colors' best 2-drops, but they're no Kroxa. Oblivion Ring is good, but it's no Prismatic Ending or Leyline Binding. Tarmogoyf might be better than Territorial Kavu, but the Kavu trumps all the other mono- 2-drops.

But that doesn't mean that drafts devolve into straightforward "pick the best card" decisions, or that all the decks turn into 5-color nonsense. Even in a format with 3 cycles each of ABUR/fetchlands, you can't cast Uro and Kroxa in the same deck, and you have to draft and deckbuild around your lands as much as your spells. (Like I said earlier, in my opinion, that's a good thing, because it forces the FIRE-era nonsense to require some investment, even when there's not any risk in the cards' rules text.)

In other words, I have drafted my cube with heavy gold/fixing for 2+ years now, and I simply have not experienced the drawbacks you warn against. Indeed, heavy gold/fixing is more suited to my Cube design goals and my personal definition of fun than the intense mono-color paradigm I began my cube with. (I believe Train and blacksmithy also enjoy similar fixing paradigms, if they won't mind me speaking for them.)

in conclusion - most cube advice boils down to "make your cube more like mine" and, despite my best intentions, this has been no exception

Well said! My fixing is still worse than yours because I am still using a singleton mana base (for the time being), but I think we're still broadly trying to support similar color breakdowns.

 

[LadyMapi]

I have contemplated this many times. The other variant of this you can do is the Basic Blues-approach, where you pick a color and make it effectively colorless. So in my unfinished cube's case, the basic land box contains Tundras, Underground Seas, Volcanic Islands, and Tropical Islands, rather than Plains, Islands, Swamps, Mountains and Forests. The cool thing is that all three of these approaches reduce the number of available color pairs to a number below 8. This increases draft tension (because more people are fighting over the same color pair) without leading to more wrecked drafts (because there are more cards available for each color pair), something I like a lot about my own cube.

I'm in despair! Your objectively superior take on a dumb idea I had has left me in despair!

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I'm in despair! Your objectively superior take on a dumb idea I had has left me in despair!

Don’t be, I credited you from the start with a link to your Sadness cube (in the overview of my cube) I think the idea is really cool, but I have been drafting so infrequently that I never spent the time to finish it. There’s also the fact that I would need, like, 40 proxies of each of the four beta duals

Edit: I also haven’t figured out if blue is actually the color I want to use here, as it’s actually one of the more unique colors. Picking white or green might make more sense.

 

[Rusje]

Another option could be to pick more cards during a draft (more packs or bigger packs). At some point you hope that a player sees playable #30 vs fixing land #2 and something clicks!

There are certain downsides to the approach, most notably that the best players will have better decks and better fixing. But if the weaker player has a level up moment where they consciously pick fixing over another playable, hopefully this is a level up moment that can carry over to the next drafts (this is probably multiple levels of wishful thinking, but I am an optimist ).

Often the knowledge of fixing power comes through playing with it. So hook them with the basic land box and then switch over to having the fixing in the cube. Most of the times lands do not beat you to death…

 

[Jason Waddell]

I respectfully disagree.

Disrespectfully agree.

 

[Zoss]

Disrespectfully agree.

Did you just reinvent sarcasm?

 

[japahn]

Disrespectfully agree.

Fuck yeah.

Just chiming in, my group in general doesn't like drafting duals. Most will do it, but passing cool cards to do the "prudent thing" and picking up a fetchland is not a good emotion from them and for me. I'd rather they focus their mental energy on their spells or the utility nonbasics than on counting mana sources. Hence, the Elegant Cube is on camp "monocolored cards" and at only 34 dual or rainbow lands at 360.

Does this mean my cube is immune to color screw, or that fixing is not good there? Not at all, fixing is still great. But you don't have to think so much about it if you don't want to, getting 3 duals+fetches for a 2-colored deck is already awesome. Having lots of gold cards almost requires playing 3 colors, which makes you have to pick a lot of nonbasics, and if you don't, disaster ensues.

I'm not saying "this is what everyone should do" but I do believe highly enfranchised players underestimate how dull many players (casual and not casual) find managing mana sources, binomial distributions, and reading Frank Karsten on their leisure time. I implemented the "4 perfect rainbow lands" in the Smooth Twin Cube for this reason and have loved not thinking about the mana base too much.

 

[Jamie]

passing cool cards to do the "prudent thing" and picking up a fetchland

The following being a disaster is certainly a salient possibility, though I nonetheless can't help but wonder what the lingering effects might be of trying a Desert-style draft on the feeling of relative coolness of lands/fixing.

 

[sigh]

thinking about the mana base too much

I've since realized this is an endemic problem in cube designing lol; after I played the most jank pile-of-cards-tossed-together cube while sitting around a small table in a hotel room... and having as much if not more fun than the carefully statistic-ed cube I've made.

 

[blacksmithy]

I've since realized this is an endemic problem in cube designing lol; after I played the most jank pile-of-cards-tossed-together cube while sitting around a small table in a hotel room... and having as much if not more fun than the carefully statistic-ed cube I've made.

yeahhhhh i feel this, it is so true. it's a big reason why ive gone from carefully crafting my cube to just throwing a bunch of cool customs with pretty art in there and seeing what happens

 

[ravnic]

I always tell them, that almost half the cards they're picking won't end up in their deck - unless they pick up some lands. Whether those are fixing lands, Barren Moor or Mihra's Factory. Sometimes it works.

What really worked was, when I was playing against a less enfranchised friend at mono red, who had a board of Akoum Hellhound, Plated Geopede and Skyclave Geopede, telling him that picking up some of the many Prismatic Vistas could've doubled his stat boosts that turn. Next draft he had six Prismatic Vistas in his deck

 

[blacksmithy]

"or how i learned to stop worrying and love drafting lands"

 

[Chris Taylor]

Just to prove there's people on the other side of this: My drafters love picking lands so much I've had to add more (mutliple times)
And even to this day, we still joke how much you need to adjust your pick order if you're sitting near certain people.

 

[Rusje]

Just to prove there's people on the other side of this: My drafters love picking lands so much I've had to add more (mutliple times)
And even to this day, we still joke how much you need to adjust your pick order if you're sitting near certain people.

That’s what I have been saying all along. Cater to the playgroup! Thank you for also pointing out the other side.

 

[TrainmasterGT]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Siege Rhino. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics, most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rhino's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterization- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Marxist literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence, people who dislike Siege Rhino truly ARE idiots- of course, they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humor in Siege Rhino's existential catchphrase "Each opponent loses 3 life and you gain 3 life," which itself is a cryptic reference to David Crane and Marta Kauffman's Upper West Side epic Friends. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Mark Rosewater's genius wit unfolds itself on their Magic board. What fools... how I pity them. : P

And yes, by the way, I DO have a Siege Rhino tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the partner's eyes only- and even then, they had to demonstrate that they were within 5 IQ points of my own beforehand. Nothing personnel, kid : )

 

[Modin]

And all I wanted to do, after my personal success, was to animate people to make this thought exercise themselves; check whether they cube cards with limiting mana requirements for no good reason. It was a great level up for me, maybe it could be for someone else. That's my message and I'm sticking with it

I just wanna say that this concept inspired me to do the same a few hours prior to my cube night (is playing from 10 am to 9 pm still considered "cube night"?)

So, thanks for that I guess.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Modin out here stunting on us, I'm happy we draft my cube every 4 weeks and he's out here hosting his own cube con

 

[LadyMapi]

I've since realized this is an endemic problem in cube designing lol; after I played the most jank pile-of-cards-tossed-together cube while sitting around a small table in a hotel room... and having as much if not more fun than the carefully statistic-ed cube I've made.

This is why I never actually play Magic — it'd taint the design experience. Dear lord, I get a LOT of use out of this emote...