I had a similar idea of making all artifact creatures count as Golems. Rebels + Allies sounds really good too! Very BTP, not that there's anything wrong with that.
General CBS
- Thread starter James Stevenson
- Start date
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I had Amrou Scout sharpied to say Human, and it was decent, but it was the only effect of it's kind in the cube
Andy went one step further, adding the rebel text to various random white creatures, and a few tricky ones, like Oblivion Ring, AEther Adept, and Kor Skyfisher
IIRC he's since dialed it back, because with too many non-vanilla rebels it becomes a bit insane to play around
Andy went one step further, adding the rebel text to various random white creatures, and a few tricky ones, like Oblivion Ring, AEther Adept, and Kor Skyfisher
IIRC he's since dialed it back, because with too many non-vanilla rebels it becomes a bit insane to play around
Hey guys, we made it to page 69 of CBS
Chris Taylor
Contributor
For reference, killing a goldfish updates more often than when people on here post about it:
http://blog.killgoldfish.com/2015/09/a-reasonable-discussion-of-possibility.html
I love every bit of this article, not just because the comments section is so delightfully salty, but because it puts so well into words why I was frowned upon for playing a general that attacks.
http://blog.killgoldfish.com/2015/09/a-reasonable-discussion-of-possibility.html
I love every bit of this article, not just because the comments section is so delightfully salty, but because it puts so well into words why I was frowned upon for playing a general that attacks.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
That's because despite knowing that article was intended as such, I couldn't get more than ten sentences down before I saw my fucking optic nerve my eyes rolled back in my head so hard
I like the bit where he likes cube.
"If competitive Magic is auto racing, EDH is a bunch of people revving their heavily-modded Ferraris at each other in a parking lot without going anywhere."
Slap that on a t-shirt.
Slap that on a t-shirt.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Funny article, but he is stereotyping a lot there. I love EDH, but I refuse to play with foils for example, and I don't want to buy ABU duals even though I could afford some because why would I spend that much money on a land when there are more than enough cheap duals available? Also, why is not playing to win such a foreign concept? I like winning, but it is not high on my list of priorities when playing Magic, unless I'm playing in a competitive setting. When playing casual Magic I want to have fun and try out wacky ideas and fun cards that I can't afford to play in a tournament.
I'm contemplating making a cube where everything can be "cast" in some useful form for 3 mana or less. Obvious go-to mechanics would include things like morph, cycling, convoke, etc. I'd also plan on using a lot of cantrips to generally increase card velocity. Laz's draw-a-card cube is where I got my initial inspiration.
Compressing the mana curve seems like it would make board stalls more common as both sides are likely to have early plays. I'd think that this would increase the value of cards that have the option to "go big" over the CMC-3 limitation (casting Akroma's Vengeance instead of cycling it, unmorphing a big dude). Does that intuition track for you?
What other design challenges can you think of that I may have overlooked?
Compressing the mana curve seems like it would make board stalls more common as both sides are likely to have early plays. I'd think that this would increase the value of cards that have the option to "go big" over the CMC-3 limitation (casting Akroma's Vengeance instead of cycling it, unmorphing a big dude). Does that intuition track for you?
What other design challenges can you think of that I may have overlooked?
Dude is a Spike, he definitely doesn't understand the appeal of EDH to the majority of people. There aren't too many people who are down to shuffle up some 100 card deck, sit down for a game, then be done with it in 3 turns. Some people actually just play Magic to have fun and mess around with cool cards, which is what a lot of EDH is. It's all about who you play with tbh. If you have a great playgroup it doesn't matter if you're playing EDH, Cube, Limited or jamming Constructed decks.
I play pretty much every format of Magic and I can find the positives in each of them. Some of them just won't appeal to certain people depending on what they're looking for. Like, I don't play EDH with the intention of winning every time. It's not likely to happen at a table of 4 people. I have Constructed, Limited and Cube for that. For me EDH is about leveraging your plays and maximizing your openings to get ahead. Or just dick around with friends and have a good time talking shit. If I really wanted to win every time, I'd bring a super fine-tuned list that would be miserable to go up against and no one would have fun but me. And then no one would ever want to run it back and play another game. It's a great way to play Magic if you've got a group of people who are on the same page, miserable for at least one person otherwise. Think of it more like a boardgame or something, no one wants to play with someone who gets too serious about it if it's a table full of people trying to have a fun time socializing and stuff.
You can't view casual Magic through a competitive scope; it just won't work because many people have a different definition of fun aside from winning.
I play pretty much every format of Magic and I can find the positives in each of them. Some of them just won't appeal to certain people depending on what they're looking for. Like, I don't play EDH with the intention of winning every time. It's not likely to happen at a table of 4 people. I have Constructed, Limited and Cube for that. For me EDH is about leveraging your plays and maximizing your openings to get ahead. Or just dick around with friends and have a good time talking shit. If I really wanted to win every time, I'd bring a super fine-tuned list that would be miserable to go up against and no one would have fun but me. And then no one would ever want to run it back and play another game. It's a great way to play Magic if you've got a group of people who are on the same page, miserable for at least one person otherwise. Think of it more like a boardgame or something, no one wants to play with someone who gets too serious about it if it's a table full of people trying to have a fun time socializing and stuff.
You can't view casual Magic through a competitive scope; it just won't work because many people have a different definition of fun aside from winning.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
I think he gets it perfectly.
Aoret
Developer
I think I've said this before on these boards, but my gripe with casual formats like EDH or just pickup kitchen table style magic is the "knife to a gun fight" problem. If there are people out there who have lucked into a balanced environment, good on them. I think those instances are pretty rare though, and I've yet to see a theoretical argument that addresses my complaint. The rebuttal tends to be anecdotal "but my playgroup has fun..." which I do believe is true, but it doesn't really compel me to change my views on those formats.
This isn't me trying to just blatantly hate on EDH guys (although I'll admit I've done so in the past here...) I'm genuinely curious if there does exist a logical rationale that addresses my balance gripe. Is it simply a matter of people enjoying their format and not wanting to waste their lives theorizing about why it is a good format?
And I guess, fuck it, let's be really meta and then pose the question: why do only riptide cube guys and retail limited fanboys sit around philosophizing about why their format(s) are the most intellectually pure and wonderfully balanced?
This isn't me trying to just blatantly hate on EDH guys (although I'll admit I've done so in the past here...) I'm genuinely curious if there does exist a logical rationale that addresses my balance gripe. Is it simply a matter of people enjoying their format and not wanting to waste their lives theorizing about why it is a good format?
And I guess, fuck it, let's be really meta and then pose the question: why do only riptide cube guys and retail limited fanboys sit around philosophizing about why their format(s) are the most intellectually pure and wonderfully balanced?
My main issue with EDH is that Magic is a game of interaction, and one of two things happen every game:
1. You don't interact enough with what's going on at the table
1. You don't interact enough with what's going on at the table
This includes uninteractive combo, busted fatties, lack of removal, not attacking, etc.
People tend to want you to interact with the table, this makes the game fun and social
2. You interact too much with what's going onIncludes removal, sweepers, counterspells, attacking players too often, etc
People hate when their plans get disrupted, and view it as "unfun"
So there's this magical christmas land of interacting "just enough." But everyone sorta has their own idea of what just enough is, so its impossible for this balance to exist outside of the "perfect" playgroup, especially if anyone in your group has any competitive spark at all (and let's face it, we all DO enjoy winning, even if it's not our primary goal).Uh, its not just us. Literally every single time a card gets printed, Modern players everywhere argue over whether their format is "healthy" and if Jace and BBE can be unbanned. Maybe its due to Wizard's aggresive ban-unban-shake-it-up-for-the-PT policy with the format, but there is a TON of format balance discussion when it comes to Modern.
Legacy players always tout how their format is the most "skill intensive" format, implying that their format is so balanced that matchups don't really matter.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Ignoring rhetorical tricks in question framing, I thought he did a pretty good job of explaning the issue:
Its really more an acknowledgement that people will try to meta your format (aka break it) and if they do so succesfully it will result in an unbalanced format, lacking in variety, as players gravitate towards a handful of effective strategies.
This manifests itself in our cubes most commonly with good stuff drafting, which is functionally the players telling you that they don't have to really care about what your cube was actually designed to do, and that they can just draft a bunch of junk every time. We can all agree that this is a real issue, that it leads to unfun environments, and if it is not acknowleged, ruins formats.
The issue than become, broadly, how do we respond to this phonomon? More narrowly, we have to choose between producing a balanced but diverse format, or curating the format so it never becomes stable enough for meta shifts to develop.
We've approached the balancing issues froma whole variety of ways, from custom cards, reducing cube size, to aggressive singleton breaking so a format revolves core interactions, to just agonizing how to better balanced archetypes and themes. We also have people that produce less stable formats by running huge cubes, or sticking aggressively to singleton formats, or even organizing their cubes into a number of "sub" cubes they can swap in and out. Some people are constantly adding or substracting huge numbers of cards, which has the effect of preventing a meta from ever settling. The funny thing is that I think most of this happens on a subconscious level.
The point is, we might still be in kitchan table top casual land (as are we all ultimately) but at least we are addressing these issues in a fun constructive manner, rather than getting irrationally angry at people for playing the format in a way allowed by its own constraints.
Aoret
Developer
Right, everyone thinks/talks about their format a lot. But my point was that riptide guys and retail limited guys tout their format as being theoretically pure and balanced in the abstract. Modern and Legacy guys talk about whether their current format is balanced in concrete terms ("delver is too good" etc).
I do think you're onto something here though when you mention the way legacy guys talk about their format as being the most skill intensive/elegant format. To me, that argument feels like it is cousins with arguments like "retail limited is best because everyone is on an even footing!". Anyhow, I think the direction Grillo's post takes us in is a more interesting one than my silly metaphilosophical musings.
Re: Grillopost, it's interesting that "natural" cube owner behavior has so many of these characteristics that prevent the problems traditional formats experience. It's also interesting just how many such characteristics there are.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Outside of this forum I think you run into more problematic cube design. Power max design is essentially a declaration that you have no interest in even thinking about balancing, and the strict insistence on singleton formats is consistant with the casual players' trend of valuing variety over consistancy.
Our forum is a lot messier i.m.o. I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We break singleton, which constricts out formats, while being aware of balance issues on some level; however, we paradoxically expand our formats by going over 360 or by running a ULD, and than make frequent and sweeping changes with every expansion. I don't think that should be surprising, since cube is a casual format in the end; and with nothing on the line when we draft, there is no pressure to produce truly fair competitive formats. The end result is a messy mixing of competing ideas, which is probably fine.
It kind of provides some perspective though on where the MTGO cube and MTGS is coming from in there design choices: unabashedly casual.
As always though, I'm left completely baffled by those guys at the balduvian trading post, and thus have to leave them out of my analysis of the major cube schools of thought
Our forum is a lot messier i.m.o. I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We break singleton, which constricts out formats, while being aware of balance issues on some level; however, we paradoxically expand our formats by going over 360 or by running a ULD, and than make frequent and sweeping changes with every expansion. I don't think that should be surprising, since cube is a casual format in the end; and with nothing on the line when we draft, there is no pressure to produce truly fair competitive formats. The end result is a messy mixing of competing ideas, which is probably fine.
It kind of provides some perspective though on where the MTGO cube and MTGS is coming from in there design choices: unabashedly casual.
As always though, I'm left completely baffled by those guys at the balduvian trading post, and thus have to leave them out of my analysis of the major cube schools of thought
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I don't want people to get too caught up in phrasing, as there is some nuance here that should be acknowledged: very few people are 100% spike and 100% Johnny: but as far as format construction goes, larger sandboxs tend to be fun, but harder to balance, and if you're a competitive player you are going to crave balance. This is what I am trying to say.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
He's not adressing my point though. If you have a playgroup of anti-competitive players, neither of whom is interested at "breaking" the format, nor prioritizing winning the game, what happens is you can have fun games where wacky stuff happens. For players like that (players like me I would say), it's not about winning or breaking the meta, it's about having fun, and yes, that is subjective. I get that he doesn't like EDH, but he gives no reason for why it is inherently a bad format. The whole essence of his stance is summed up casually in a single paragraph:
In other words: winning, from his point of view, is the only legitimate intent of Magic the Gathering. Sorry, but that's just not how every player ticks.
Yeah I don't really like EDH, but some people have been enjoying it for quite some time and I don't see what's wrong with that. This goldfish killer guy has a bad case of magic elitism, which I'm sure I've mentioned before. It's something that really annoys me about magic players, and many nerds in general: we all look down upon each other, and find ourselves to be incredibly smart and cool. The players we beat are dumber than us, and the ones who beat us are for the most part very uncool. Once we find a few like-minded people our attitude is legitimised. Take, for example, groups of like-minded EDH players who think their format is the best, groups of constructed players who think their format is the best, and of course, the people we can relate to the most, cube designers. Those MTGS dweebs don't know how to design a fun cube (note that "fun" is basically redundant when it precedes "cube"), and those BTP people are weird and unsavory (I'm making a joke. Actually I think the people we consider to be uncool are EDH players. They are having as much fun as us, so we can't really say they're wrong, but we can at least make fun of them).
This is not healthy but the great thing is, since I'm above elitism, it gives me something to look down upon that's pervasive in magic players.
This is not healthy but the great thing is, since I'm above elitism, it gives me something to look down upon that's pervasive in magic players.
Laz
Developer
As always though, I'm left completely baffled by those guys at the balduvian trading post, and thus have to leave them out of my analysis of the major cube schools of thought
I think given the recent community project ended with a format which could only be drafted in less than a year by a highly optimized computer program, they wear the word casual very poorly. Those guys take their Magic (and meta-magic, in this case) very seriously. I mean, what other group of people would consider every permutation of Standard possible with the Magic cardpool?
Dom Harvey
Contributor
Winning is the only major intent of any game, which makes it easy for both players to be playing on the same axis if that's their goal. You can play games for other reasons but those tend to be player-dependent and thus much less likely to be shared between players (hence the wildly different definitions of fun you see causing conflict in EDH)