General "Draw a card."

[CML]

whereas, the best formats of all time have been Ravnica, Odyssey, and Invasion;
whereas, all these formats had an assload of cantrips (including some lands at common that we like to ridicule on here);
whereas, most of our cubes are sorely lacking in that kind of effect;
RESOLVED: maybe we should add more cards like these:



let's get this party started

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Does Serum Visions count? I run Strix, Cryptic, Electrolyze, Remand, Simulacrum and Relic of Progenitus in my own cube, plus

 

[Changling Bob]

whereas, the best formats of all time have been Ravnica, Odyssey, and Invasion;

I feel like, based on this premise (which I don't disagree with!) we should do some analysis of these formats to determine where they are similar, and where they are dissimilar from other formats. Cantrip density is certainly one axis to look at, but things like creature size to mana cost, removal efficiency, creature butt size to damage output ratios and other shenanigans like that would help. Maybe I will do this at some point. Maybe.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I feel like, based on this premise (which I don't disagree with!) we should do some analysis of these formats to determine where they are similar, and where they are dissimilar from other formats. Cantrip density is certainly one axis to look at, but things like creature size to mana cost, removal efficiency, creature butt size to damage output ratios and other shenanigans like that would help. Maybe I will do this at some point. Maybe.

This feels like a lot of work that might yield very little understanding. But maybe it would. I dunno, I feel like I should read some more mothership articles on limited design, they often have good points that are portable to cube land.

 

[Changling Bob]

This feels like a lot of work that might yield very little understanding. But maybe it would. I dunno, I feel like I should read some more mothership articles on limited design, they often have good points that are portable to cube land.

Well I feel like here we've settled back on 'aggro needs to be fast to exist' and have our bunch of 2-power 1 drops that... don't really exist in the wild. So if those retail environments are fun, it's going to be different to the reason our current cubes are fun. Creature curves and butt-to-removal ratios might yield some information on why that's the case. I suspect CML is right about keeping card flow smooth with cantrips, scry, et al, but I doubt that's the entirety of the thing.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Well I feel like here we've settled back on 'aggro needs to be fast to exist' and have our bunch of 2-power 1 drops that... don't really exist in the wild. So if those retail environments are fun, it's going to be different to the reason our current cubes are fun. Creature curves and butt-to-removal ratios might yield some information on why that's the case. I suspect CML is right about keeping card flow smooth with cantrips, scry, et al, but I doubt that's the entirety of the thing.

Well, the curve of, I'll say, all of our cubes is much lower than a retail environment. You can't really tone down the one drops without pushing towards higher CMC Magic, which approaches dragon territory. It's well possible our cubes have too few big butts. But... fuck board stalls.

 

[CML]

I feel like, based on this premise (which I don't disagree with!) we should do some analysis of these formats to determine where they are similar, and where they are dissimilar from other formats. Cantrip density is certainly one axis to look at, but things like creature size to mana cost, removal efficiency, creature butt size to damage output ratios and other shenanigans like that would help. Maybe I will do this at some point. Maybe.

here i advocate the "literary approach" rather than crunching numbers. something like "all the implicit card advantage made it possible for them to print very powerful removal that was balanced" makes a great deal of sense to me here. there is also "lots of activated abilities," "not too much or too little synergy," and so on. another idea i have is that the guild mechanics in original RGD sucked and it didn't matter much that they sucked. another idea i have after that is "no rigidity of archetypes." for IPA a downfall was "not enough fixing," which got fixed in RGD (where signets were balanced and bouncelands were super-powerful, ensuring a tiny density of "non-games.") yet another idea i have is that curves for limited formats are almost always the same and so there's something else going on here. etc.

 

[Goldenpineapple]

Here's some, I guess:



Does curiosity count?

A number of them are even big-butt blockers! How about that.

 

[GenericZero]

I think the most important part of having a large number of cantrips is making sure they're interesting effects. I recall when me and some friends first built a cube together how after a few drafts we realized most games felt like we just had core set draft decks with more cantrips. It was really boring really fast. In fact, it made me come to hate most 1/1 cantrip creatures as well as Pelakka Wurm. I'm sure there's a way to make it work that I just never saw back then. Possibly put more focus on cards that effect hand sizes and whatnot? Also probably important to note that most green,white,and black cantrips that I can think of are usually very uninteractive...so there's also that issue.

 

[Jonas]

I want to make masked admirers good in my cube, what do I need to add?

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Ch

I want to make masked admirers good in my cube, what do I need to add?

Chimney Imp. Seriously though, Masked Admirers is soooo close to being playable, but at 4, with those stats, drawing a card and subpar recursion shenanigans are just not cutting it imho. Basically you're playing cannon fodder each other turn and voluntarily overpay by two mana for the privilege to cast said cannon fodder again. Meanwhile your opponent waltzes over you because he has an actual, meaningful curve.

 

[Lucre]

I feel like non traditional card advantage played a big role in those environment's success too. Things like flashback cards and bounce lands mattered a lot. I'm pretty sure the availability of reasonable removal was up there too, but I can't speak much for invasion because personally I found it to just be a passable draft format.

I know Odyssey was really cool because all the themes seemed to be stacked up going in the same direction, and Ravnica was really sweet because of the pack management vs what colours you were in and how deep each colour felt. Ravnica also had a real feel of being a toned down version of dragon cube to me.

As for "Draw a card" you could find that on a huge number of onslaught cards too, and that format wasn't the most fun ever (albeit I was no kind of reasonable drafter when I was playing onslaught, but I got a little experience with it later through retro drafts)



I am always down to see more digging, especially when it comes to non-blue colours. People here already know I've got a thing for cycling, but in the same way, I love the card Remand, because it's a totally solid spell that contributes to the graveyard and your hand, while also more or less cycling when you are in a pinch.

So what do we have so far?

• Digging
• Cantrips (a spell that when you cast it contributes to both your hand and your graveyard)
• Availability of removal
• Colour depth
• Deep synergy
• Pack / Archetype gimmics

 

[Dom Harvey]

Masked Admirers was almost playable in 2007, I guess

 

[ahadabans]

I'm still running masked admirers. But my cube is like a 2007 cube so I don't think it's out of place.

 

[Jonas]

Masked Admirers was almost playable in 2007, I guess

I played masked admirers in my anti faerie deck back then, with timbermares and insanely expensive evoke critters. Could beat faeries, but not much else.

 

[Alfonzo Bonzo]

I feel like, based on this premise (which I don't disagree with!) we should do some analysis of these formats to determine where they are similar, and where they are dissimilar from other formats. Cantrip density is certainly one axis to look at, but things like creature size to mana cost, removal efficiency, creature butt size to damage output ratios and other shenanigans like that would help. Maybe I will do this at some point. Maybe.

This is worth a read in that respect:

http://puremtgo.com/articles/ars-arcanum-rgd-draft-and-rtr-mechanics

It talks a lot about how you plan your draft through the guilds and the three different booster packs. This planning an anticipation was certainly one of the enticing things about the format. It's pretty impractical for cube though.

What is very interesting, is that the article talks about the speed of the format. It states three reasons:

* Karoos take up a turn in the early game (and are prevailant)
* Decks are three or more colours and so you spend the early game fixing your mana (signets etc)
* Lots of creatures with low power and high toughness that gum up the ground

Other observations from the article

* Games come down to topdecking
* Auras become better because of this
* You have lots of mana available (karoos, signets, slow environment) so mana sinks and expensive creatures become better

Are these the reasons why a lot of us think that rav block is fun? If it is and we tried to apply it to cube, and not just cantrips are cool, what are the implications?

There's a big school of thought that doesn't like the signets. How many mana rocks would you need to match the frequency they showed up in RAV boosters? I would imagine quite a lot.

If you applied these lessons, what would it mean for traditional aggro? An interesting follow up article, if you have time to skim read it, is his review of Return to Ravnica block. It talks about how the fast guilds have a negative effect on the rest of the guilds in the block.

In relation to the multicoloured aspect of the block, there's definately an appeal here, what with all the powerful effects they bring. The problem which we all recognise, is that it can lead to too many dead cards during the draft, especially when you have a smallish number of players during the draft.

By far, I don't have all the answers, just more questions.

 

[ahadabans]

My take on why Ravnica block was so fun is because it was slower. You had more time to do things, so there were just a lot of design options. But slow environments favor control. That wasn't an issue in Ravnica block because the top end was much lower power than what we have today. Skeletal Vampire was a legit finisher back then. Today, it would be costed at 4 or 5 mana (and it's token generator would probably only cost 3 instead of 5).

With high powered finishers that take over games, you have to speed up the format. That is where most cubes are at from a design space which is why lowering the curve and pushing aggro makes them play better. It's one solution to the problem. The other is to de-power (in particular the finishers). That option is much harder because you have to remove a lot of game warping effects and do a lot more balancing.

Increasing consistency will make games play better overall, but it will also lower variance. That means that better players and better decks will win more often. Depending on your playgroup, that could be a net positive or a net negative. Adding more cycle/draw effects is one way to increase consistency.

 

[MCMcEmcee]

Eh I don't think rgd was fun because it was a slower format; m11/m14 were slow and boring.
Imo formats like rgd or roe were interesting because there weren't a lot of dead turns; you were typically advancing the game towards a conclusion most turns, and there was enough early action to force some interaction.
Contrast to m14 where you did basically nothing important except draw cards and try to not deck yourself.

 

[Changling Bob]

There's a big school of thought that doesn't like the signets. How many mana rocks would you need to match the frequency they showed up in RAV boosters? I would imagine quite a lot.

I mean, we take issue with the signets; but in retail draft context, there's 24 (of 208!) rares opened, and only some of those are GRBS if powered out two or three turns early, probably because of signets.

If we put regular, modern magic cards where you can reliably power them out three turns early, they can easily wreck games (what up, titans), but when you know that your top-end has to be toppier and there's less big midrange/control finishers to rely on. In retain they both aren't in the environment and because you're relying on uncommons instead of rares for your big hitters; and lets be fair, cubes are probably half or more rares.

 

[CML]

nearly all of the creatures were gloriously inefficient in RGD. 'value' is the buzzword. everything was so incremental and there were not many haymakers and even fewer that couldn't be answered.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

It sounds like a tempo-light format, and that seems more the issue than speed of the format--whether a tempo-light format can be fun in cube. None of us really want to go back to the dark days of low-tempo grim monilith cubes, which is what signets and company are associated with. I'm sure someone could cook up a fun format with both signets and karoos, but you would have to design for it from the bottom-up. No wastelands, tec. edge. or permanent bouncers, and powerful removal to kill cards powered out by the artifact ramp.

That being said, RGD may be a popular format and sounds fun, but given its age, I think it’s only prudent to consider the possible impact nostalgia may have on its high ranking amongst draft formats. I remember how exciting it was to have a set with so much excellent color fixing and the possibilities that opened up, and there may be significant flaws with the format that are being overlooked. For instance, I’m not sure I like the idea of a format where you are top-deck dependent.

 

[CML]

i understand your bias thing but after drafting every format, RGD is the very best. http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10649

on one hand you could do OK not committing to the board early. on the other hand there was a certain advantage to doing so, and you had to do something of your own, you couldn't just kill all their guys with value removal because their guys made value too. i think it's likely Cube is more like constructed and the ecology depends heavily on getting things done t1, t2, t3, but it's also worth bearing in mind that formats like Theros and AVR saddle themselves with 'making it hard to catch up,' which is design flaw. Theros has enough mana sinks that at least it's hard to run out of things to do, though, which was the main reason i made this thread.

there is not a limited format around that doesn't revolve around topdecking well later on (not even yours or mine with the brainstorms, wadds) but RGD was less dependent on that because of the cantrips, ditto OTJ with Flashback, Theros with Bestow and so on.

 

[MCMcEmcee]

yeah triple theros/btt is a bit disappointing because bestow/monstrosity are great but the games can snowball too hard. journey helps with better/more removal and less bestow but it still plays out similarly in my experience

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Yeah, I try to stay away from rating systems: individual biases etc. As long as it’s a respected format, that’s enough for me to pay attention to it, and RGD clearly is. I'm so sorry you drafted fallen empires though.

i think it's likely Cube is more like constructed and the ecology depends heavily on getting things done t1, t2, t3,

That’s the thing with cube though-- the ecology is dependent on what you want it to be. If you took an existing, tempo focused, riptide cube and tried to simply patch in a "RGD feel" I could see it being a disaster. However, in a world where cube designers have the imagination to make a cube revolving around scuttlemutt, I'm sure someone could explore this design space successfully.

 

[Jason Waddell]

i understand your bias thing but after drafting every format, RGD is the very best. http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10649

on one hand you could do OK not committing to the board early. on the other hand there was a certain advantage to doing so, and you had to do something of your own, you couldn't just kill all their guys with value removal because their guys made value too. i think it's likely Cube is more like constructed and the ecology depends heavily on getting things done t1, t2, t3, but it's also worth bearing in mind that formats like Theros and AVR saddle themselves with 'making it hard to catch up,' which is design flaw. Theros has enough mana sinks that at least it's hard to run out of things to do, though, which was the main reason i made this thread.

there is not a limited format around that doesn't revolve around topdecking well later on (not even yours or mine with the brainstorms, wadds) but RGD was less dependent on that because of the cantrips, ditto OTJ with Flashback, Theros with Bestow and so on.

Genuine question, which constructed formats do you consider to "not resolve around topdecking well later on".

My last cube draft had a ton of great games, but many of them were great because I drew the answers off the top of my deck at the right times.