A good point. It also doesn't address why 60 cards was chosen in the first place. I agree that with a 60 card minimum, the correct number to run is 60. But why was 60 chosen in the first place? It could have easily been a different number was my point from the beginning.
General Color matters / devotion
- Thread starter CML
- Start date
A good point. It also doesn't address why 60 cards was chosen in the first place. I agree that with a 60 card minimum, the correct number to run is 60. But why was 60 chosen in the first place? It could have easily been a different number was my point from the beginning.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Maybe because if you play 1/3 land and 2/3 spells, 60 is what you arrive at if you multiply 4 (max of each spell) by 10? Ten is a nice round number, and playing 24 lands was unheard of in those days 
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I think it would have probably ended up pretty close to 60 regardless, maybe 55 at the lowest, at least with a 4 card limit. That section of the book is about two-three pages, and a big part of what he was trying to do was persuade people that even though it might be difficult to make the cuts to have a 60 card deck, you have to do it. I realize the waters of speculation are a little muddied here because you couldn't actually go below 60, but I still suspect that were you able to, people would have pushed for more cards rather than less, at least during that period where your only tutor is a restricted DT.
Now, maybe that would have changed with the printing of more tutors. I'm not a statistician so I have no way of knowing whether there is any sort of mathematical basis for 60 cards or whether it’s truly just a random number, but if someone wanted to run the numbers, I would be open to the results. A lot has changed since then, as evidenced by Orgg being listed as a competitive type 1 card. Edit: There are some pretty funny sections in the book too about mana bases lol...I remember when I came back to magic during ravinca, it blew my mind that control decks weren't playing 28 mana sources anymore.
Now, maybe that would have changed with the printing of more tutors. I'm not a statistician so I have no way of knowing whether there is any sort of mathematical basis for 60 cards or whether it’s truly just a random number, but if someone wanted to run the numbers, I would be open to the results. A lot has changed since then, as evidenced by Orgg being listed as a competitive type 1 card. Edit: There are some pretty funny sections in the book too about mana bases lol...I remember when I came back to magic during ravinca, it blew my mind that control decks weren't playing 28 mana sources anymore.
Maybe because if you play 1/3 land and 2/3 spells, 60 is what you arrive at if you multiply 4 (max of each spell) by 10? Ten is a nice round number, and playing 24 lands was unheard of in those days
That totally makes sense. I remember when I first started, I was told 1/3 land. But I never follow that anymore even in my more aggressive builds (40% is usually my bottom limit). You just get hosed too often with 20 lands. Flood sucks too, but you can recover from that usually. Screw is basically a scoop.
If I had to guess, the 4 card limit was the combination of the small card pool when the game first came out and the fact that in a regular deck of cards, you have 4 of each card. As a game designer, I usually try to draw from existing games in this way simply because it makes it easy to explain to people and it adds an element of familiarity. Pretty sure that's why you also start with a 7 hand draw.
Point is, I don't think most of these things are based on a careful mathematical analysis. And that is sort of why I'm not opposed to questioning them if there is a really good reason to do so. I'm not necessarily saying there is, but I see these rules as just as breakable as singleton in cube is. If it makes sense and the game is better for it, why not?
This dovetails a bit with the thread I started on Magic evolution.
A fundamental question:
Is Magic better when people are drawing the proper amount of land to spells (i.e. not getting flooded/screwed)? Or do people like the variance that is built into the random nature of the game and the fact that a non-insignifant number of games are decided by screw/flood?
I've seen arguments both ways, so this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm honestly curious how people feel about it.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I like to play interactive games of Magic. I dislike mana flood and screw on either side of the table because it makes the games less interactive. However, I also like it when games are decided on skill, and building (or drafting) the correct mana base is definitely a skill tester.
I will say that I feel like fewer cube games in my environment are decided by mana flood or mana screw than in typical limited formats, and even some constructed formats (thinking of block at the recent Pro Tour here). But plenty of games are still decided, unfortunately, by colour screw. This is something that the environment naturally offers a solution for, in the form of plentiful fetchlands and shocklands. But nabbing nonbasics to build a manabase isn't naturally ingrained in some players. So when they reach over for 6 Forests and 7 Swamps, then lay down six lands in a game while still being unable to cast their trio of cards in hand, and lose by a landslide as a result, it can be a little frustrating.
cards in hand, and lose by a landslide as a result, it can be a little frustrating.That I would agree with wholeheartedly.
On the topic of color screw... I think if it comes because of bad deck building or from cards played by your opponent, it's OK (in limited doses). But the random screw that happens from the shuffle, that I think is just feel bad.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
It's so hard to tell those apart though. Even MtG veterans can still misbuild their manabases. There's only a select few (Frank Karsten comes to mind) who really know how to build a perfect manabase and what percentage of games you are still going to lose despite that.
Edit: Here's an excellent article by Karsten he wrote last year on building a sound manabase.
Edit: Here's an excellent article by Karsten he wrote last year on building a sound manabase.
Fair enough. I wonder if anyone has documented that anywhere?
I certainly don't want to remove all mana issues from the game. I think it's an integral part, but I do sometimes feel like it determines the outcome of more games than it should (in a bad way). So it has always been on my radar as something I'd like to see improved. Still waiting for someone to come up with a good solution though. But when that happens, I'll be all over it I think (assuming I can sell it to my group).
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
See my edit. In it, Karsten lists the number of mana sources of a certain color you need to be able to cast cards with 1, 2 or 3 matching mana symbols on curve with a 90% probability. You can figure out the correct numbers from there. For example, in a 40 card two-color aggro deck with 16 land, you would need 4 untapped duals (and 6 basics each) to play one-drops in both colors on curve.
I think I need to add Sulfurous Springs, Caves of Koilos and Battlefield Forge to better support my aggro colors...
This is why people - namely Calvin - advocate running 17 lands in limited aggro decks, and very occasionally 18 lands. It's not so much the mana screw that will kill you, but the colour screw - not having both and on turns two and three to be able to cast all your beatdown bears, which takes precious pressure off the table, and gives your opponent time to assemble their durdly durdles.
and on turns two and three to be able to cast all your beatdown bears, which takes precious pressure off the table, and gives your opponent time to assemble their durdly durdles.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
That would require 14 W and 9 R lands for turn 2 (or 6/17 duals) or 13 W and 8 R for turn 3 (4/17 duals). CC cards are really hard to cast on curve in limited!having both
You need 16 black sources to run out Geralf's Messenger on turn 3 by the way. 16!
Pssh... real men cast Messenger off of a swamp and a colorless land.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Phyrexian Tower is on my wish list I run Urborg in my cube at the moment.
I run Urborg in my cube at the moment.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Like we covered in the other thread, it's mainly that changing the rules of Magic means that our base evaluations of all of the existing cards need to change. Magic cards are costed and balanced around the existing set of rules; changing the rules means that we throw our evaluations out the window, and start from scratch. Cubes would and should look very different. We already have trouble comparing notes from one cube to the next, as cube environments tend to be pretty different, so it's sometimes apples and oranges. Throwing a new rule into the mix, we'd now be comparing apples to real-wheel drive axles.
My group is hella consistent, but I'm not sure I want to bring them a game that's not exactly Magic, but looks like Magic and uses Magic cards, but doesn't use their card evaluations, nor their pick orders, their deckbuilding shortcuts, their preexisting evalution of card synergies, and so on and so forth. Heck, I'm even reluctant to introduce a second-mulligan-is-to-six rule, and that doesn't even affect the on-board gameplay. There's enough complexity in cube written on the cards themselves as it is, along with my minor modifications to the draft process, like using four packs and adding a utility draft. The more I can piggyback off people's knowledge of Magic as it stands, the better.
What you've proposed in the other thread may seem to you like very minor changes to the game of Magic, but they are anything but. So - to throw the ball back in your court - the onus is on you to propose the changes, test them out, let us know what you and your group liked about them, what you guys found to be off, and where you'd go from there. I think you'd get a little more traction that way. Theorycrafting only gets you so far; at some point, the rubber must meet the road.
My group is hella consistent, but I'm not sure I want to bring them a game that's not exactly Magic, but looks like Magic and uses Magic cards, but doesn't use their card evaluations, nor their pick orders, their deckbuilding shortcuts, their preexisting evalution of card synergies, and so on and so forth. Heck, I'm even reluctant to introduce a second-mulligan-is-to-six rule, and that doesn't even affect the on-board gameplay. There's enough complexity in cube written on the cards themselves as it is, along with my minor modifications to the draft process, like using four packs and adding a utility draft. The more I can piggyback off people's knowledge of Magic as it stands, the better.
What you've proposed in the other thread may seem to you like very minor changes to the game of Magic, but they are anything but. So - to throw the ball back in your court - the onus is on you to propose the changes, test them out, let us know what you and your group liked about them, what you guys found to be off, and where you'd go from there. I think you'd get a little more traction that way. Theorycrafting only gets you so far; at some point, the rubber must meet the road.
I think the variance is good for the game (except when it happens to me dohoho). The game loses so much design space if you mess with the lands/spells model much and would be a poorer experience for it imo
Also don't think it's as prevalent or problematic as it seems. Mana screw/flood games are just more memorable, like games where our opponent has a sick top deck or pretty much any game we lose. I know I remember pretty much every loss in a major tournament going back like 6 months, maybe even longer.
Utility lands, bestow, scavenge, monstrosity, unearth, etc. There are so many insane mana sinks to choose from these days. We can alleviate the pain of mana issues without messing with the basic rules.
Also don't think it's as prevalent or problematic as it seems. Mana screw/flood games are just more memorable, like games where our opponent has a sick top deck or pretty much any game we lose. I know I remember pretty much every loss in a major tournament going back like 6 months, maybe even longer.
Utility lands, bestow, scavenge, monstrosity, unearth, etc. There are so many insane mana sinks to choose from these days. We can alleviate the pain of mana issues without messing with the basic rules.
MCMcEmcee brings up some great points. Flood mitigation is getting easier and easier by the day, as Wizards has become more keenly aware of the issue, and printed some great cards to tackle the issue head on, and for pretty much every archetype. Aggro? Check, and check. Midrange? Got you covered. Control? Haven't forgotten about you.
So feel free to run 17 lands in aggro, and feel good about it... as long as your cube is running a utility draft.
If you really abhor mana screw and variance that much, there are other games built with modified mana systems, that have their entire card pools balanced around these modified rules. Cancel in WoW TCG - the forebear of Hearthstone - looked at first to me like garbage, until I realized it was actually just Counterspell in disguise. That is to say, when you can always guarantee your third land drop, and you don't have to worry about pesky things like colours, a three mana hard counter is verifiable as bonkers. I'd recommend a game like this if the variance and mana issues bother you that much, because it's interesting to see what happens when you have complete control over your land drops, as well as how card balance and evaluations get turned on their side.
So feel free to run 17 lands in aggro, and feel good about it... as long as your cube is running a utility draft.
If you really abhor mana screw and variance that much, there are other games built with modified mana systems, that have their entire card pools balanced around these modified rules. Cancel in WoW TCG - the forebear of Hearthstone - looked at first to me like garbage, until I realized it was actually just Counterspell in disguise. That is to say, when you can always guarantee your third land drop, and you don't have to worry about pesky things like colours, a three mana hard counter is verifiable as bonkers. I'd recommend a game like this if the variance and mana issues bother you that much, because it's interesting to see what happens when you have complete control over your land drops, as well as how card balance and evaluations get turned on their side.
If there's one thing I've learned from working in the software industry, it's that demoing a prototype is the best way to sell your ideas. Show - don't tell. If you need some inspiration, Jason did basically the same thing with his Gravecrawler idea. He just went up and did it, and it worked out for him, and we were pretty easily convinced after seeing his results.