Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
To be fair, the Troll doesn't necessarily need a sac outlet, as you can pay mana to remove counters from it. Still, excellent reply!
General CBS
- Thread starter James Stevenson
- Start date
Dom Harvey
Contributor
I love fiddly shit with counters but Ascendancy really doesn't do it for me. Counters are great because you can do things with them beyond boosting stats (and when it is mainly doing that, it's in fun and flashy ways). Ascendancy just sits there tying up your mana and demanding some basic accounting.
Yeah, I kept trying to come up with combos with arcbound ravager that would win in one turn before realizing that they all worked just as well if you replaced Simic Ascendency with fling.
Fling is a superior win condition for Timmies.
I wanna talk about this cat lady:
The reason is how to sort it in. I don't have a 3-color section, which is the reason this card was never in my cube so far. But now my cube has aggressive 1-drops only in three colors: Red, white and green. That's because the only supported hard aggro decks are
Madness and GoWide. Mono red decks or red decks with or splashes happen from time to time, as well Aggro decks. All the other green decks however are Ramp/Landfall/Dredge and wouldn't be more interested in Junge Lion than they would be into Wild Nacatl.
So, would you say it is reasonable to just count it as a green card?
The reason is how to sort it in. I don't have a 3-color section, which is the reason this card was never in my cube so far. But now my cube has aggressive 1-drops only in three colors: Red, white and green. That's because the only supported hard aggro decks are
Madness and GoWide. Mono red decks or red decks with or splashes happen from time to time, as well Aggro decks. All the other green decks however are Ramp/Landfall/Dredge and wouldn't be more interested in Junge Lion than they would be into Wild Nacatl. So, would you say it is reasonable to just count it as a green card?
It probably depends on your land base, but I've started to go more and more by what color is required to cast a card for the way I categorize my cards. For instance, I put Lingering souls in my white section without hesitation because I consider the flashback something you could splash for in a W/x deck that doesn't run black. By the same token, you can slot Nacatl in both a G/r and G/w decks so I don't think it should go in any guild slot, or a tri-color slot either.
I actually run a custom based on Wild Nacatl:
1/1
~ gets +1/+1 if there are exactly two basic land types among lands you control.
~ gets +2/+2 if there are three or more basic land types among lands you control.
Something like this is even more difficult to fit into a particular slot, so 'green' it is.
At the same time, the fact that it goes in decks of multiple different colors is reminiscent of hybrid cards. Wild Nacatl has kind of a similar 'color identity' to Marisi's Twinclaws, in terms of which color combinations can reasonably play the card. My custom is kind of a 'Green, but multicolored' card. I've been thinking recently about how Sunforger is nearly-hybrid, like half an artifact but an entire boros card, and how that feels like it applies to some of the phyrexian-mana cards like Birthing Pod and Moltensteel Dragon.
It feels like if we want to capture this complexity we need many more categories among which to distribute our cards - but taken too far, this leaves us with so many categories that we no longer group similar cards together, which was sort of the point to begin with.
I still think hybrid and multicolored sections should be separate, but any of the weird stuff should probably just go with its main color for organizational simplicity. Usually. I also have a spreadsheet that drills down to all these weird combinations of colors and hybridity but it's used purely to calculate color distribution statistics. It isn't useful as a cube list because it has too much information.
1/1~ gets +1/+1 if there are exactly two basic land types among lands you control.
~ gets +2/+2 if there are three or more basic land types among lands you control.
Something like this is even more difficult to fit into a particular slot, so 'green' it is.
At the same time, the fact that it goes in decks of multiple different colors is reminiscent of hybrid cards. Wild Nacatl has kind of a similar 'color identity' to Marisi's Twinclaws, in terms of which color combinations can reasonably play the card. My custom is kind of a 'Green, but multicolored' card. I've been thinking recently about how Sunforger is nearly-hybrid, like half an artifact but an entire boros card, and how that feels like it applies to some of the phyrexian-mana cards like Birthing Pod and Moltensteel Dragon.
It feels like if we want to capture this complexity we need many more categories among which to distribute our cards - but taken too far, this leaves us with so many categories that we no longer group similar cards together, which was sort of the point to begin with.
I still think hybrid and multicolored sections should be separate, but any of the weird stuff should probably just go with its main color for organizational simplicity. Usually. I also have a spreadsheet that drills down to all these weird combinations of colors and hybridity but it's used purely to calculate color distribution statistics. It isn't useful as a cube list because it has too much information.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Just remember that no matter where it is, your cube will be fine.
Mine are in my artifact section
Mine are in my artifact section
Chris Taylor
Contributor
got linked to me today:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgcube/co...ement_about_cube_why/?st=JS0YW08C&sh=e1af91a3
https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgcube/co...ement_about_cube_why/?st=JS0YW08C&sh=e1af91a3
Maybe I wasn't reading properly but I got the impression that was a whole lot of people stating power-max is the one true kind of fun?
The point that seems to be being made most often is that a low-powered cube is a harder sell to a new group than a traditional power-max cube, because that's more what fits with people's preconceptions of what a cube is. In other words, you can build whatever cube you like, but you can't force people to play it.
Honestly what your "playgroup" likes is only important if you play together on a regular basis. If it's the first time you've drafted your cube with a group of people, then what they like can't realistically have an influence on your design. Now, obviously, if you play with the same 7 people every week, then you should totally consider what they like (or at the very least what they dislike) when you are working on your cube, but ultimately, if it's your cube it's your choice.
I find this whole idea that "Cube has to be Powermax" to be retarding for the format. There are certain useful aspects of powermax philosophy to consider while designing a list, but those aspects are often few and far between. Cube is whatever you want it to be. Just make it balanced and your players won't care about the power level.
Last edited:
Amen! Cube is just a box of magic cards, at the end of the day. I'm impressed at playgroups where people find themselves able to say no thank you to a free draft?
As someone that's gone from a Recurring Nightmare power-level to a very low powered uncommon-driven cube with the same playgroup, the idea that "power-max is the most fun way to cube" is, in itself, a recurring nightmare. I find the whole power-max culture to be self-perpetuating and cancerous to the perceptions of new cube managers/designers and players, who come away thinking that players prefer power-max when given the choice (were they though?). If my playgroup is any indication -- and I say this because unanimously my cube is "in the best state it's ever been, please don't change it" -- the appeal of your cube format to an individual is almost entirely an acquired taste and the personal preferences of your playgroup are malleable rather than inherent.
The amount of growth that has happened in my design skills and in my players' appreciation for things beyond power-level would have never happened if I drank the collective, power-max Kool-aid and catered to the idea that "power-max is the most fun way to cube". I have heard said many times by many people that when you cut out things like sugar from your diet, real food starts to taste amazing -- you just need to get over the withdrawal first. If I've learned anything through this design exercise over the past year, it's that catering to first-lick impressions by others has dangerous consequences of perpetuating homogenization of a format and experience. My playgroup is more experienced and insightful because of it, and capable of approaching new cubes with an open mind. Honestly, I'm far more proud of my group evolving with my cube than the cube itself -- they're all grow'd up :sniff-sniff:
And perhaps one other skill I've picked up is learning to sell the intrigue of your particular format to a new player. Not too long ago I was at GenCon. I walked up to the (I assume) authors of a game at their booth and asked, "Looks intriguing. So what's unique about your game?". To which I got a reply of, "Well, here's the box. Read the back side and let me know if you have any questions." -- salesmanship at its finest. I feel like this happens to be the default behavior for cube organizers as well; that your creation should be able to stand on its own merits and that your players will pick up on its naturally oozing awesomeness. Don't do this. Naturally, people want to be sold to, people want to get excited, and there are far more ways to do this than matter-of-fact-ly stating that your cube uses all of WotC's greatest mistakes in Magic history. Combat CAN be interesting, your decisions DO matter. Don't allow your players to become the child that hates that particular kind of food they've never even tried -- that's how you get picky eaters.
The amount of growth that has happened in my design skills and in my players' appreciation for things beyond power-level would have never happened if I drank the collective, power-max Kool-aid and catered to the idea that "power-max is the most fun way to cube". I have heard said many times by many people that when you cut out things like sugar from your diet, real food starts to taste amazing -- you just need to get over the withdrawal first. If I've learned anything through this design exercise over the past year, it's that catering to first-lick impressions by others has dangerous consequences of perpetuating homogenization of a format and experience. My playgroup is more experienced and insightful because of it, and capable of approaching new cubes with an open mind. Honestly, I'm far more proud of my group evolving with my cube than the cube itself -- they're all grow'd up
:sniff-sniff:And perhaps one other skill I've picked up is learning to sell the intrigue of your particular format to a new player. Not too long ago I was at GenCon. I walked up to the (I assume) authors of a game at their booth and asked, "Looks intriguing. So what's unique about your game?". To which I got a reply of, "Well, here's the box. Read the back side and let me know if you have any questions." -- salesmanship at its finest. I feel like this happens to be the default behavior for cube organizers as well; that your creation should be able to stand on its own merits and that your players will pick up on its naturally oozing awesomeness. Don't do this. Naturally, people want to be sold to, people want to get excited, and there are far more ways to do this than matter-of-fact-ly stating that your cube uses all of WotC's greatest mistakes in Magic history. Combat CAN be interesting, your decisions DO matter. Don't allow your players to become the child that hates that particular kind of food they've never even tried -- that's how you get picky eaters.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Hey man, thank god for EDH! If it weren't for EDH the random foils I had lying around wouldn't have just sold for 400$ credit
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
That was almost a sympathetic post Haymaker, until the unnecessary dig at Commander. Let players play the format they love, don't hate on each other! I happen to like playing Commander, and I have a cool playgroup to play it with. Why should I feel guilty for liking Commander, why should I feel like I'm not really playing Magic? I also have played a power max cube, and it was a fun experience! The owner in turn had fun with my cube, which is very far removed from the average power max cube. Should I berate that player for having built a power max cube? How can we hope to breed acceptance for the sort of weird shit we're pulling with our own cubes, if we ourselves aren't willing to accept that power max cubes, and Commander for that matter, are valid ways for a Magic player to have fun? Live and let live, learn to sell your cube's concept, be the acceptance of formats that don't make sense to you you want to see in others. Because let's be honest, our cubes are the rarer breed, and we shouldn't pretend that our truth is the only truth.
Onderzeeboot, you're right. The dig was unnecessary even if I meant it in jest and had a very dry delivery. I'm just going to remove that part, particularly if it distracted so much from the rest.
Ultimately, my feelings around it circle back to what I was trying to highlight prior. I have a group that considers 1v1 magic "sad", as in "if we can't get another player, we'll have to play sad magic [or SadEDH]", which also means they just won't play at all if it comes to that. And really, that's not Commanders fault but a playgroup issue. I just get a similar sense of groupthink going on with them as I do about other subgroups pushing a narrative about their format. Mind you, I still play Commander with that group and my cube group, but I still have trouble considering Commander and Cube similar games when the respective formats collapse entire play patterns, mechanics, and decision points in favor of a host of exclusively new ones. Of course I won't judge someone for preferring some style or flavor of the game to another, and to the tune of my original post, the onus is on me to help them recognize that those preferences are malleable rather than genetic -- so really, I don't deserve to complain.
I could probably go on a 30 page rant about why I think commander generally sucks when I'm playing it with anyone other than my friends. The format can be extremely fun, but it is also probably the single least balanced sanctioned format in all of magic (and that's saying something, since vintage exists with Slash Panther and Black Lotus being playable in the same deck).
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Commander can be a can full of worms in the wrong playgroup, and the best way to play Magic in the right one. Of all the "mainstream" types of Magic I've tried, it probably has the widest... "fun band"*. That said, when it's good, it's really good
*Caveat: I've seen some competitive constructed players bask in the glory of their deck working one day, and utterly pissed when it didn't the next day, so there's that.
*Caveat: I've seen some competitive constructed players bask in the glory of their deck working one day, and utterly pissed when it didn't the next day, so there's that.