General CBS

[Humpty_Dumpty]

I listen to too many Magic podcasts, but was struck by the similarities between a recent episode of Lucky Paper Radio about emergent cube design and the most recent Mark Rosewater episode about designing synergies into retail sets. Both adopted a branching approach, that would then seek to cross-link between nodes on that framework.

Time to redesign my cubes.

 

[Brad]

I listen to too many Magic podcasts, but was struck by the similarities between a recent episode of Lucky Paper Radio about emergent cube design and the most recent Mark Rosewater episode about designing synergies into retail sets. Both adopted a branching approach, that would then seek to cross-link between nodes on that framework.

Time to redesign my cubes.

Can you give us a TL;DL on this?

 

[Onderzeeboot]

TL;DL

Respect.

 

[Humpty_Dumpty]

Can you give us a TL;DL on this?

You could try listening on 1.5x or even 2x speed and have MaRo sound even more manic than usual, but I will indulge you.

Both episodes are taking a "mind map" type approach to designing a draft environment.

LPR suggest designing a cube by picking a card you want to play (in this case Trade Routes), looking at all different aspects of the card, then adding cards that support these concept. Examples are Barrin, Tolarian Archmage and Tameshi, Reality Architect, both of which draw cards when you return a land with Trade Routes, or Faith of the Devoted Bone Miserand Drake Haven which trigger on discard. Then you start finding links between these cards, adding Harmonic Prodigy to double those wizard triggers and Idyllic Tutor to find those enchantments. Iterate on this process, add in some interactive cards and voilà, you have a cube.

MaRo takes a similar approach to set design, starting with the example of disguise cards in MKM. He actually suggests mapping out on a piece of paper all the characteristics of a disguise card: 2/2; colourless; hidden types; hidden mana cost; etc. He then describes how these can be used by other themes in the set, for example disguise allows you to play more high mana value cards in your deck, thus feeding gather evidence. Other themes in the set allow you to form more cross links. Because this is set on Ravnica they also wanted to include hybrid split cards, which also help with collect evidence, and other hybrid costs, inspiring gold disguise cards that have hybrid flip costs.

Both approaches involved an iterative, branching design process with subsequent identification and strengthening of cross-links. The main difference is that LPR are using existing Magic cards, whereas MaRo was using the process to design new cards.

 

[LadyMapi]

You could try listening on 1.5x or even 2x speed and have MaRo sound even more manic than usual, but I will indulge you.

As someone who quite literally cannot listen to podcasts due to hearing problems, thank you for the summary!

(Stuff on audio is generally not the greatest for accessibility. Also we're on a text forum with multiple users who don't have English as their first language, so...)

 

[PyreDream]

Both episodes are taking a "mind map" type approach to designing a draft environment.

Both approaches involved an iterative, branching design process with subsequent identification and strengthening of cross-links. The main difference is that LPR are using existing Magic cards, whereas MaRo was using the process to design new cards.

I think cube designers learn this over time. I'm trying to capture the essence of Lorwyn in a similar remix cube, without replicating the exact draft environment.

Champion a creature --> Bargain spells --> token-makers --> token payoffs.
Retrace spells--> land recursion --> self-mill --> relevant creature types.
Self-tapping merfolk --> conspire --> convoke --> tapping opponent's stuff --> relevant creature types.
Bonus fuck faeries: Giant tribal --> token-makers, 5CC-matters --> relevant creature types.

One of the criticisms of Lorwyn was the linearity and narrowness of drafting by creature type; since the creatures were mostly limited to two colors, it turned the experience into "drafting on rails," possibly originating the use of that phrase. The most blasphemous thing I might have done here is just "unlocking" the creature types from their colors and giving players a bit more freedom to pivot during draft. I think it's not too far off the mark of emergent design as it's currently defined, even if the execution isn't quite perfect.

 

[Brad]

Vehicles for self-tapping, too.

You can get the standard deck Faeries vibe by running a density of flash spells.

Giants and Treefolk can pretty organically be your top end without having to necessarily be a kindred deck.

Kithkin

 

[Brad]

Anyone ever done a text import on CubeCobra and some cards that weren't in the import show up? Has me nervous what else went wrong.

 

[LadyMapi]

Weird tinkering time!

I'm fiddling with a mono-green cube, and I've hit on fights, fogs, and combat tricks as substitutes for traditional creature removal that feel pretty green (it also means that Hunt the Hunter is on the table, which feels really cute). However, I'm unsure as to how many copies of each I should have in the initial iteration of my cube — my current thoughts are (for a 180 card cube):

• 10 fogs
• 15 fight spells
• 25 miscellaneous combat tricks.

(Yeah, I know, those are suspiciously round numbers. I'll tweak it once I get further into the weeds.)

The idea is that big creatures will naturally prey on little creatures in both combat and when fighting, while the counterplay to big creatures is to fight them with deathtouch creatures, dodge past them with Forestwalk, kill them by pumping your guys, or trick your opponent into swinging out so that you can fog them. Fogs are also there to deal with go-wide strategies.

As for power level... I'm aiming towards something where Timeless Witness + Druid's Deliverance is a valid thing to set up, or where powering out an early Khalni Hydra is not terribly embarrassing.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

However, I'm unsure as to how many copies of each I should have in the initial iteration of my cube.

I’m afraid there is no right answer here, because it all depends on how much interaction you want your players to have. What you can do is look at how much interaction you want your players to have. For example, if you want your drafters to have four pieces of removal on average, that’s 16 cards in a 180 cube (because four players)

One thing I want to add, is that I am very skeptical about counting fogs as removal. I view them as strict sideboard cards, that might be boarded in as a way to stretch out games against aggro or go wide decks, to the point that you can turn the game, say with a Thragtuskesque card, for example.

 

[Rusje]

Weird tinkering time!

I'm fiddling with a mono-green cube, and I've hit on fights, fogs, and combat tricks as substitutes for traditional creature removal that feel pretty green (it also means that Hunt the Hunter is on the table, which feels really cute). However, I'm unsure as to how many copies of each I should have in the initial iteration of my cube — my current thoughts are (for a 180 card cube):

• 10 fogs
• 15 fight spells
• 25 miscellaneous combat tricks.

(Yeah, I know, those are suspiciously round numbers. I'll tweak it once I get further into the weeds.)

The idea is that big creatures will naturally prey on little creatures in both combat and when fighting, while the counterplay to big creatures is to fight them with deathtouch creatures, dodge past them with Forestwalk, kill them by pumping your guys, or trick your opponent into swinging out so that you can fog them. Fogs are also there to deal with go-wide strategies.

As for power level... I'm aiming towards something where Timeless Witness + Druid's Deliverance is a valid thing to set up, or where powering out an early Khalni Hydra is not terribly embarrassing.

Did you think about how to avoid board stalls followed by: player plays a fight card, swings with everything, spend a combat trick, gets blown out by a fog, opponent attacks you fog and so on.
Thing is, are players willing to attack at all since they know they will walk into a fog?

 

[Nanonox]

Just play 10 copies of Questing Beast to level up the fog meta.

 

[Velrun]

Universes Within are leaving Magic

“We’ve done the research. There just isn’t a large enough group that wants “Universe Within” cards. We don’t think the product would sell well enough to warrant making it.”

- Mark Rosewater

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Universes Within are leaving Magic

“We’ve done the research. There just isn’t a large enough group that wants “Universe Within” cards. We don’t think the product would sell well enough to warrant making it.”

- Mark Rosewater

Maybe try incorporating UW in another way than how you did it... At least I got a Greymond, Avacyn's Stalwart for my human deck before they pulled support for UW.

 

[MilesOfficial]

Universes Within are leaving Magic

“We’ve done the research. There just isn’t a large enough group that wants “Universe Within” cards. We don’t think the product would sell well enough to warrant making it.”

- Mark Rosewater

From the price differentials on the UB vs equivalent UW cards, yeah, the non-Magic IP ones carry a premium. But I imagine that's because of Supply nearly as much as Demand: there were maybe 120k Walking Dead SL and 60k Stranger Things sets printed vs. millions of boxes of set boosters.

All the same, I do believe the most likely thing here is that most Magic players don't care like Mark says, and that the 8%-15% of folks who discuss Magic online are disproportionately visible about their disdain. I wouldn't be surprised if we get the occasional UW card, as a treat - kind of like how we're now getting the occasional classic border card. But UW as a set sounded like something few would be excited to buy, and I'm mostly glad they're not going to go hard in that direction, as much as I like having options.

I would give a finger if they stopped using that absolutely awful metallic "finish" on UB cards though.

 

[Schafkurai]

From the price differentials on the UB vs equivalent UW cards, yeah, the non-Magic IP ones carry a premium. But I imagine that's because of Supply nearly as much as Demand: there were maybe 120k Walking Dead SL and 60k Stranger Things sets printed vs. millions of boxes of set boosters.

Not only that but they occupied a slot on the list and they removed all other cards from it, so it only consisted of 7 cards. Even if you only get a list card in ever 4th booster the supply has to be huge. Seemed like a weird marketing strategy to me.

 

[StrionicAdventurer]

Ghostbusters. Battlebots. Pop-tarts. James Bond. GI Joe. Madame Web. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Hardees. Naruto. The Chronicles of Narnia Family Guy. The Real Housewives of Miami. Myst. Legends of the Hidden Temple. The Witcher. Boglins. Jaws. The Voyage of Dr. Doolittle. Skechers.

Imagine the brand awareness that could be yours with just a single microtransaction of Rectangles: the Purchasing, a game of intellectual property licensing from the honking swine who brought you Space Jam 2: A New Legacy.

 

[Velrun]

I’ll buy Game of Thrones version or A Song of Ice and Fire version. Just like I bought The Lord of the Rings.

But after that it gets difficult to find good names that fit.

 

[Brad]

I would give a finger if they stopped using that absolutely awful metallic "finish" on UB cards though.

I was thinking about using this frame for UB cards I "fix" to make them fit MtG, but that damn frame makes everything look like an artifact.

 

[Mown]

There's nothing particularly surprising about this. Yeah, I really don't want to play with UB cards. That doesn't mean I especially want to play with a universes within Lembas either, most cards just aren't desirable, realistically how many people would actually want Cecily, Haunted Mage, in the vast sea of magic products it's not that exciting of a card outside of its "I recognize that thing!" factor.

Besides, I'd personally just not support wotc at all.

 

[ravnic]

I would give a finger if they stopped using that absolutely awful metallic "finish" on UB cards though.

YESYESYES.

When they introduced those for the 40k product I thought that they fit these cards nicely with the dark Sci-Fi artworks and such, but then they made the super obvious horrible choice to use them for Lord of the Rings, just to ensure that I wont get any of those cards. Also not a fan of the rectangle on the bottom of every card, but that's less egregious.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Universes Within are leaving Magic

“We’ve done the research. There just isn’t a large enough group that wants “Universe Within” cards. We don’t think the product would sell well enough to warrant making it.”

- Mark Rosewater

You know I'm not gonna lie, when I read this the first time I thought this was a meme that all sets were gonna be crossover IP from this point onward.
No more magic sets using original designs

 

[Onderzeeboot]

YESYESYES.

When they introduced those for the 40k product I thought that they fit these cards nicely with the dark Sci-Fi artworks and such, but then they made the super obvious horrible choice to use them for Lord of the Rings, just to ensure that I wont get any of those cards. Also not a fan of the rectangle on the bottom of every card, but that's less egregious.

I feel you, but I'm not going to let the silly frame withold me from playing some absolute bangers from that set. The basic landcyclers in particular are the bee's knees, frame be damned

I’ll buy Game of Thrones version or A Song of Ice and Fire version. Just like I bought The Lord of the Rings.

But after that it gets difficult to find good names that fit.

There's plenty of resonant fantasy that would fit the Magic IP, though LotR and GoT are definitely the most familiar to a wider audience. I would love an adaptation of Robin Hobb's The Realm of the Elderlings setting, or Weis and Hickman's The Death Gate cycle, for example.

 

[Seeker]

You know I'm not gonna lie, when I read this the first time I thought this was a meme that all sets were gonna be crossover IP from this point onward.
No more magic sets using original designs

I did too. Not ashamed to admit it.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

Both episodes are taking a "mind map" type approach to designing a draft environment.

LPR suggest designing a cube by picking a card you want to play (in this case Trade Routes), looking at all different aspects of the card, then adding cards that support these concept.

I think this sounds really fun! Turns out there's a pretty nifty tool for it as well, "Scryfall Tagger", that can give you some ideas on cards that can be considered related to any given card.

https://tagger.scryfall.com/



For example, Tormod gives the tags cycle-cmr-backward-partner, leaves graveyard trigger, reanimate matters, and repeatable token generator.