General Cultic Cube video series

Wrong. You can set type, color, stats, anything you want to anything you want. If you want your Emrakul to cost 4 green mana, you can choose to do so.
My point was you can't set the name. Anyway, let's agree to disagree. I myself need the scan upload mechanic to accomodate my custom cards, so I'm still on CT myself. I am giving CC a fair shake as soon as they incorporate a mechanic to accomodate my custom cards though. Might even become a patron before that, just because I think it's good that there finally is some decent competition for CT. Ben has done a lot of good for the cube community, but the last few years have been... below par. His reasons are many, and reasonable, but his communication is seriously lacking.
 
My point was you can't set the name.

Easy solution. If you want to add the new Arcane Signet from Throne of Eldraine, you simply add Arcane Sanctum instead and upload a card scan on top. Then you change type from land to artifact and change mana cost from 0 to 2.

Voila! All problems are solved.
Whenever you search for ‘Arcane S’ you will find your Signet. In the visual spoiler your Arcane Signet will be placed exactly where it should be. Magic!

Edit: Use the same method when you upload custom cards like Reevaluate. And for the real Wizards MtG cards you can always choose to switch to the real deal whenever possible.
 
Velrun, I know how it works. I'm doing it for all my custom cards, though I like to use a placeholder that's close in function and casting cost. Like I already argued though, not all problems solved. As soon as Arcane Signet is released for real on CT, I'ld have to replace the Arcane Sanctum with the real deal, and all decks featuring the fake Arcane Signet will now contain an Arcane Sanctum instead. Unless I sideboard the proxy, but that'll pollute my sideboard fast. All of the metrics CT gathered will also be gone. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it's not as perfect a solution as releasing the cards within 24 hours of them being spoiled. If I could choose, I would much prefer CubeCobra's solution over fiddling with custom scans, and it's not particularly close. I get that it's not a sticking point for you, but it is for me, which is why I wait for the official release on CT before adding cards from a new set nowadays. Like I said, let's agree to disagree.
 
Manaburn.org will allow custom card images at some point (after they get a patreon to pay for hosting). It seems like we'll be stuck with CT until then.
 
Do you do this for every card? That sounds pretty labour-intensive.

No it’s not. It takes less than a minute for each card with a discount if you do multiples.

Also I like perfecting my cube. Spending money and time on a hobby is not an issue for me.

Right now CubeTutor >>> Cobra. Maybe when Cobra gets to level up to CT level we can talk about a fair fight.
 
That still sounds like several hours of repetitive work, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

I do actually agree with Velrun that putting up custom scans (provided you use a custom/alter/version CT doesn't feature) is worth it, we just don't feel the same way about temporarily adding soon to be released cards through uploaded card scans. In reality, it's a bit by bit project, and uploading custom scans is relatively painless on CT. Yes it will cost you some time, but no more than a few minutes per batch, and your cube will look prettier and more representative for your IRL cube.
 
That still sounds like several hours of repetitive work, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

1. “Work” Not really work. It’s a hobby. Like painting your Warhammer figures or whatever they’re called.
2. “Several hours.” If it takes that long then you’re doing it wrong.

The outcome greatly outvalues the input.

However if Cobra upgrades, then it might save me and other people a few minutes per expansion.
 

Chris Taylor

Contributor
No it’s not. It takes less than a minute for each card with a discount if you do multiples.

Also I like perfecting my cube. Spending money and time on a hobby is not an issue for me.

Right now CubeTutor >>> Cobra. Maybe when Cobra gets to level up to CT level we can talk about a fair fight.

But ho boy if it was automatic? I'd be so in
 
I'm not in any sense a representative of Cobra -- I'm 100% unaffiliated with them. But just to say, there's a whole gaggle of really smart developers working on the project now that it's open source, and they are releasing features and fixes at an astonishing rate. They just came out with v2.0 yesterday. The site still isn't quite up to snuff compared to CT, but I have every expectation that it will get there. Gwen and his team have already addressed most of the issues that I brought up in that video review.


Also, here's a new thing I did:
 
I'm not in any sense a representative of Cobra -- I'm 100% unaffiliated with them. But just to say, there's a whole gaggle of really smart developers working on the project now that it's open source, and they are releasing features and fixes at an astonishing rate. They just came out with v2.0 yesterday. The site still isn't quite up to snuff compared to CT, but I have every expectation that it will get there. Gwen and his team have already addressed most of the issues that I brought up in that video review.


Also, here's a new thing I did:

This video brings up an interesting point in my opinion.

To support ramp in the fashion we see in this video, we as designers would need to include enough ramp spells so that our drafters can get their hands on about 8 or so ramp spells. If we look at Eleusis, (data from which I'm assuming is one of the primary sources for the video) there's about 23 ramp spells in a 450 card cube. In the MTGO summer 2019 legacy cube, there's about 24 ramp spells in 600 cards. If we convert these ratios down to 360 card size, (assuming I did my math correctly) we'd find that Eleusis' ratio converts to about 18.4 ramp spells per 360 cards, while the legacy cube converts to about 14.4 ramp spells per 360 cards. When we're building our cubes, which ratio do you think makes for a better draft experience, assuming we only want approximately one player all in on ramp per table?

Target Cube Size(Number of Desired Type of Cards/Base Cube Size)

Examples
360(23/450)=18.4
360(23/600)=14.4
 
I think it's tricky to have a fix ratio. I don't know about other people here, but when I cube draft, I have between 3 and 5 players and never the full 8.
Assuming we keep the 14-18 ramp spells ratio, I could theoretically have 2 ramp drafters each with 8 ramp spells!
That is also assuming I'm drafting the whole cube. If only a portion of it is drafted, then the math is off.

Basically it's important to take total cube size into account, but don't forget to factor in the amount of players actually drafting and the percentage of the total cube used for the draft.
 
Great points! I don't have a good answer for you, and honestly I arrived at my current ramp density by feel. My group felt that ramp was being undersupported, so I kept adding ramp spells, testing, and adding ramp spells until we arrived at a number that felt comfortable. But my number may well be too high for others, I don't know. As I intimate in the video, I think the ramp deck that isn't ramping is simply failing, so it is a priority for me to supply my drafters with adequate tools to allow that to happen should that be the avenue they want to pursue. On the other hand, I've largely drained green of midrange, thus pushing green toward the margins of the curve. So the "unga bunga" strategy that I discuss toward the end simply isn't viable in my environment. I've played cubes where there is robust green midrange support, though, and those decks can be a lot of fun.
 
Gold sections are hard in #mtgcube! It is equally true, though, that multicolor cards are sweet. This video helps you find the gold cards that work best for your goals and to run them at a ratio that makes sense for your environment.

This is a really good video that covers a fundamental topic. I've learned each lesson that you go over in the video individually over time, but it's nice to have a refresher aggregated in one place.

And actually, the point that aggressive decks don't favor multicolor cards as heavily has prompted me to re-examine my Boros section. I've always had a soft spot for RW control decks, but Mardu are the aggressive colors in my cube. The Rakdos section has a bunch of Aristocrats stuff to make sure that RB decks had reach. I was trying something with Feather, but I just don't think you can get the combat trick density you need to make her interesting in cube, so I've been trying to figure out what else to do in her place.
 
Not that Feather is still a solid 3/4 flyer for 3. You don't need many tricks to make her worth it. In fact, I'm not sure you need any at all.
 
And actually, the point that aggressive decks don't favor multicolor cards as heavily has prompted me to re-examine my Boros section. I've always had a soft spot for RW control decks, but Mardu are the aggressive colors in my cube. The Rakdos section has a bunch of Aristocrats stuff to make sure that RB decks had reach.

Yay, I'm delighted that you enjoyed it! Thanks for saying so! :) I love big Boros, too. I'm basically the only one in my group who ever builds it, and I don't draft the deck often, but I enjoy RW balance+wildfire+rocks. I like Boros Nahiri there.
 
Planeswalkers are powerful, iconic, and divisive. In this video, I explain why I have dispensed with Planeswalker caps in my cube and why you might consider doing so, too. My thanks to you all for your insightful explanations of your walker philosophy! I am delighted to be able to share a bit of the diversity of approaches that exist to cubing this category of card.

 
Planeswalkers are powerful, iconic, and divisive. In this video, I explain why I have dispensed with Planeswalker caps in my cube and why you might consider doing so, too. My thanks to you all for your insightful explanations of your walker philosophy! I am delighted to be able to share a bit of the diversity of approaches that exist to cubing this category of card.
Another very good video. This series is becoming more and more essential. I've long had a cap of at most 2 walkers in any single color, and at most one walker in any given guild. I've also worked hard to make sure that each walker is meaningfully different from each other such that they fill different roles.

This video taught me a lesson that I should have learned a long time ago, because I knew it for the other card types but had a blind spot for walkers for whatever reason - namely, focus on the effect, not the card type. As WotC has gotten more diverse in their walker design, I think I should allow myself to relax on the walker restriction more.

I do like the restriction of only having one version of a particular character in the cube at a time, which I have tried on and off to enforce for myself. Mostly this fails because I like both Liliana of the Veil and Liliana, the Last Hope too much to try to choose between them.
 
Top