General Elegance in cube card selection

[RavebornMuse]

I think the difference is between using lower power formats to explore increased complexity (something Grillo is great at and sigh is also exploring), versus using lower power formats to explore decreased complexity (something japahn and perhaps ahadabans seem to be exploring in somewhat different ways).

To articulate that further: whereas the former group sees Incendiary Flow as an elegant way to provide incidental hate against some minority of the field and provide some tech-y utility, the latter group may instead see Volcanic Hammer as the more appropriate card, as it doesn't offer any secret tech benefit to insider players and thus serves to flatten power level and balance the field a bit more. Similarly, the former group might see Gisa and Geralf as an exciting, synergistic tool for self-mill, zombie, and graveyard value decks that requires some understanding of the format to really make use of, whereas the latter might find Cloudblazer and its straightforward utility more appropriate for helping the clearer, but more generic, Control deck come together with relative ease.

Obviously some distinctions will apply among members within each of these groups, but I feel like this is a pretty fair assessment on why the "elegance" dilemma is persisting as it is in this thread; it's a difference of perspective and intent.

 

[sigh]

Yeah I basically agree 100% with this.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

fwiw I would be more interested in cloudblazer if we were in a format where stroke of genius becomes to mulldrifter what sphinx's revelation becomes to cloudblazer.

As in, we're shopping for main card draw engines, but calibrating down the power level, and the most direct way for us to do that is to swap stroke for drifter and revelation for chaser. Than we run 0 other ETB blink creatures, and hardly any efficient flyers in white or blue. Control decks are supposed to use momentary blink, ghostly flicker, or displace with a small subset of control focused creatures to craft a game around (mnemonic wall/archaeomancer etc).

It has to be the apex draw tool, but provided in a way where tempo flyers doesn't occlude it as a control piece (which is always a danger with those cards).

Thats hard to do, especially when you consider that reducing the power level of the creatures, gives raw spells a chance to breath, and if we're policing ETBs we're moving in that direction. If we are even at that sort of low/mid power point at all, just running stroke or braingeyser starts to look more appealing to promote control (draws cards, X spells want mana superiority). We have to go even lower power to get to the point where its fair to say to players that this is the best card draw their control deck can expect.

Cards like drifter and cloudblazer are just really easy to pervert away from that intended role as fog-draw and into the role of tempo-pressure. A 1/1 flying body btw would have communicated that intended role much clearer.

Also, fwiw, I think everyone is really discounting the power of the two life gain attached to a fog body. I remember when sphinx's revelation came out people were dismissing the life gain, but it turned out to be key in catapulting the card to being a format defining spell. I kind of expect this card to feel like sphinx's revelation in a more limited setting, and probably better since it can pressure rather than durdle.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

My original reaction just called you out on calling a card lazy design, which is as bad of a reason not to include a card as elegance is to include a card.

I actually disagree with this. My claim was that it was a lazy design and that its pushed, value based, ETB design was boring, which is a fine reason to exclude a card.

In order for our formats to be fun they have to be engaging. This is an engaging framework for cloudblazer:

As in, we're shopping for main card draw engines, but calibrating down the power level, and the most direct way for us to do that is to swap stroke for drifter and revelation for chaser. Than we run 0 other ETB blink creatures, and hardly any efficient flyers in white or blue. Control decks are supposed to usemomentary blink, ghostly flicker, or displace with a small subset of control focused creatures to craft a game around (mnemonic wall/archaeomancer etc).

Asking a player to gauge the merits and benefits of reactive blink versus assertive blink on their fragile creature based draw engine is an engaging take on a protect the queen strategy. This is cloudblazer being an actual cog for a strategy.

However 99.9% of the time, in most formats (and probably this limited format), this is just going to be a 5 mana value city cash in for azorius decks, requiring little to no engagement from the player.

This is where value fatigue comes in on certain cards. Yes, I understand that there is a certain range of situations where they lead to interesting interactions, (or formats that can be built to make them more interesting) but cards like these trend strongly towards promoting boring and unengaging value plays.

If we're going to go to value town, at least make the trip there more engaging than just tapping 5 lands.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I don't know what to tell you grillo. You keep calling this a pushed, valuetown card, yet Mulldrifter is in your cube. What's so super engaging about Mulldrifter that Cloudchaser lacks? I have argued multiple times that Cloudchaser can fill a niche that Mulldrifter simply doesn't slot into, because any blue player will snap that card up. Plus, when I ask myself if my players would enjoy casting Cloudblazer, the answer is a pretty resounding yes. I'm not saying everyone should run Cloudchaser. There are totally legit reasons for not doing so, like sigh pointed out gold slots are tight in most cubes, but yours just read to me like you're using double standards.

 

[RavebornMuse]

I don't know what to tell you grillo. You keep calling this a pushed, valuetown card, yet Mulldrifter is in your cube. What's so super engaging about Mulldrifter that Cloudchaser lacks? I have argued multiple times that Cloudchaser can fill a niche that Mulldrifter simply doesn't slot into, because any blue player will snap that card up. Plus, when I ask myself if my players would enjoy casting Cloudblazer, the answer is a pretty resounding yes. I'm not saying everyone should run Cloudchaser. There are totally legit reasons for not doing so, like sigh pointed out gold slots are tight in most cubes, but yours just read to me like you're using double standards.

Given that Mulldrifter is present in the Penny Pincher cube and that the cube directly enables blink, feeding the "ETB spam" that is so unholy about Cloudblazer, I was about to make this same comment.

Heck, even going back to the "alternative definitions of elegant" comment made by Grillo here,

Or it could mean how broadly comprehensible the card is, or how simply it resolves a complex format problem, or perhaps how effectively it represents the color pie, or maybe even the minimalist approach you advocate for above.

Let's see:
- Broadly comprehensible? Yep
- Resolves a complex format problem? Depends
- Effectively represents the color pie? Yep
- Minimalist? Yep

It reaches 3 out of 4 of these definitions of elegance with relative ease. Which seems fair to me, given that we're in the thread about... elegance.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I don't know what to tell you grillo. You keep calling this a pushed, valuetown card, yet Mulldrifter is in your cube. What's so super engaging about Mulldrifter that Cloudchaser lacks?

This is what a flying phyrexian rager would look like: just pure generic value, and not clever at all about how it goes about it.

Evoke means that mulldrifter can at least be somewhat clever about how it generates value.

Though the penny cube is a big part of why I tend to take a more anti-ETB spam perspective. It really educated me about how abusive blink effects could be, and the way that even lower power ETB's can define a format. The blink package is that format is very much powered down, consisting mostly of spell based blink effects rather than ETB ones, or self-bounce creatures, and its still obnoxious.

Running value etb creatures or blink in one format shouldn't be seen as an unequivocal endorsement of etb creatures. I also run phyrexian rager in that format, but I will be the first one to tell you its a fairly dull card.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Evoke means that mulldrifter can at least be somewhat clever about how it generates value.

Well... It's more versatile. You could call that somewhat clever or you could call that even more pushed, depending on what spin you want to put on the story. To draw four cards off of Momentary Blink you need only five mana with Mulldrifter, but seven mana with Cloudblazer. If you are looking for more lands because you've stalled, Mulldrifter has your back, just evoke it without shenanigans. Cloudblazer just stares at you apologetically. Mulldrifter is naturally great with reanimation spells, with Cloudblazer you need to get creative. I don't know about somewhat clever, but I do know that Mulldrifter is a hundred times more pushed than Cloudblazer, so it's pretty unfair to judge Cloudblazer for that but not Mulldrifter. Cloudblazer is just pure generic value, yes, but it does not have a safety valve in case you can't get to five mana, and because it asks you to commit to two colors to make use of that pure generic value, it actually has a chance to table to the blink / control drafter.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Cloudblazer is just pure generic value, yes,

I'm not sure why we're even having this discourse than if you ultimately agree with me.

I understand that you want to run the card, and thats fine. You don't need to create justifications on an online forum to do so. My original position was that it was a pure generic value card, which we are not in disagreement on. Surely you can appreciate how some people would find that dull.

Whether mulldrifter is more pushed or not, or whether cloudblazer is an elegant or inelegant card, is pretty far removed from what I don't like about the card, or why I stated the design was lazy.

My advice to you is to just run cloudblazer if you wish, and enjoy that sensation of generic 5 mana value, if that is your cup of tea.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I'm not sure why we're even having this discourse than if you ultimately agree with me.

The difference between our points of view is that you say "pure generic value" like it is a bad thing.

I understand that you want to run the card, and thats fine. You don't need to create justifications on an online forum to do so. My original position was that it was a pure generic value card, which we are not in disagreement on. Surely you can appreciate how some people would find that dull.

Actually, I don't want to run the card. Or, well, I won't be running it, which is not technically the same I suppose.

I like Cloudblazer a lot, and if was a thing in my cube, I would certainly make room for it.

I don't run any blue white cards in fact, but if I did, I would totally run the card. I have tried to explain why I don't think the card is dull, and even fills a niche, but obviously you're not buying my (and others') arguments. Vice versa there isn't a whole lot you can do to convince others the card is dull, because that's, well, subjective. The main thing I was harping on was the "hypocrisy" of you judging the card for being a generic value card, while refusing to acknowledge the same arguments hold for Mulldrifter. You know, when someone is wrong on the internet, you can't just ignore that, right?

Whether mulldrifter is more pushed or not, or whether cloudblazer is an elegant or inelegant card, is pretty far removed from what I don't like about the card, or why I stated the design was lazy.

My advice to you is to just run cloudblazer if you wish, and enjoy that sensation of generic 5 mana value, if that is your cup of tea.

See, you do it again in that final sentence. Apparently generic 5 mana value is a dirty thing, except when we're talking about Mulldrifter. After all our back and forths, I still don't get what makes you like Mulldrifter but hate Cloudblazer.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

One argument would be that mulldrifter has two modes which gives it some more finesse. It's not just a value etb, its a modal spell.

 

[sigh]

yeah, I'd say it's almost entirely because

And then when you have something that can synergize with it, like Genesis or Reveilark, or Spider Spawning. It's still purposed as a value spell, but it has more play, is what is being gotten at

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

One argument would be that mulldrifter has two modes which gives it some more finesse. It's not just a value etb, its a modal spell.

Which he's already been told twice.

This is what a flying phyrexian rager would look like: just pure generic value, and not clever at all about how it goes about it.

Evoke means that mulldrifter can at least be somewhat clever about how it generates value.

Original post to now.

After all our back and forths, I still don't get what makes you like Mulldrifter but hate Cloudblazer.

Thats because you don't want to.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

One argument would be that mulldrifter has two modes which gives it some more finesse. It's not just a value etb, its a modal spell.

Which he's already been told twice.

Original post to now.

Thats because you don't want to.

Ok, let's try this. What I gathered from your posts Grillo is that you find Cloudblazer too blatantly "powerful", i.e. not at all clever about how it provides value. The card is very straightforward; you play it, you draw two cards and gain two life. End of story. I think our main point of contention is whether Mulldrifter is actually more clever about how it generates value than Cloudblazer. You say yes, I say no. Your take on the matter: Mulldrifter is somewhat clever about how it generates value because it has an additional mode, evoke. I say evoke just makes Mulldrifter more flexible, and thus more powerful, making it actually less clever about how it generates value imho. It's also monocolored, making it a far easier pick, i.e. requiring no commitment from the drafter. Again, this could be a reason to choose Cloudblazer over Mulldrifter.

Of course, if you're looking for more flexible and more powerful, Mulldrifter is easily the pick, but from Grillo's posts I got the feeling that that was exactly not what he was looking for in his cards, thus my confusion.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Mulldrifter is somewhat clever about how it generates value because it has an additional mode, evoke.

Which if we're being intellectually honest, would end the discussion right there.

Evoke has synergy with sac outlets, sac triggers, reanimation, blink, death triggers, undying evil, and adds a body to the yard for cards that care about raw graveyard count, or card type in yard.

This is in addition to the modal choice of divination or spell creature.

Hence:

This is what a flying phyrexian rager would look like: just pure generic value, and not clever at all about how it goes about it.

How long do you intend to go in circles about this?

 

[ahadabans]

I'm enjoying the back and forth here and don't really want to take sides. What I do want to say though is I think evoke is a really great key word because it offers options. There is a cost involved with using the evoke option (you lose the body barring blink shenanigans). And there have been plenty games where it wasn't clear whether getting less value now was better than getting more value later. That makes a good Magic mechanic and I rate evoke up with cycling and scry.

That said, Mulldrifter is a generic value card. In a lower powered meta, I think it's a very easy first pick. Cloudblazer is whole lot less flexible and is probably never a first pick. I still think it offers interesting meta design decisions for the simple reason it's more narrow yet still a stand-alone value play. I probably wouldn't run it and mulldrifter in the same list though.

 

[RavebornMuse]

And thus we end up with exactly what I was getting at with the first post to page 6; some people go lower power for more complexity, others go lower power for less complexity. The entire argument for Mulldrifter being a better card than Cloudblazer is about it offering more complex interactions that make it more powerful in the hands of a skilled player. Which, I mean... yeah, duh.

But again, going back to the OP, I'd really like if this thread was given some breathing space for those interested in the idea. I think japahn defined his perspective of elegance pretty well, and there's been some loose collection of people who grasp that definition, and it seems really unnecessary to commandeer this thread for discussions about competing perspectives on elegance, because there's a space for the high complexity, lower power cards already: Lower Power Card Spotlight. This would make a great place for the low complexity, lower power cards to be pooled and discussed, especially for those of us looking into making introductory formats and adding even simpler tools to our lists.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The entire argument for Mulldrifter being a better card than Cloudblazer is about it offering more complex interactions that make it more powerful in the hands of a skilled player. Which, I mean... yeah, duh.

Thank you, I was getting frustrated there, especially after I had previously made this post, and this post, about where I think value cards have a place in cube (which was also reflected by my original statement). Mulldrifter is consistent with that philosophy: though, I'm actually fairly tepid about it, and were it not for all of the play evoke offers, I would not run it. If he had bothered to look at my new list, for example, which is designed to severely cut down on ETB effects (which was not in the penny cube's initial specs, which I also stated), he would have noticed that it lacks mulldrifter, for instance.

Shriekmaw is another card that I like at least conceptually for similar reasons, but I can run bone shredder for a more reasonable alternative.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Which if we're being intellectually honest, would end the discussion right there.

Sorry, edited my post to make it clearer. This is actually how you feel about the card, not how I feel about the card.

Evoke has synergy with sac outlets, sac triggers, reanimation, blink, death triggers, undying evil, and adds a body to the yard for cards that care about raw graveyard count, or card type in yard.

This is in addition to the modal choice of divination or spell creature.

How long do you intend to go in circles about this?

I'm not going in circles, *we* are going in circles. You feel evoke makes Mulldrifter a more clever card than Cloudblazer. I feel evoke makes it a less clever card. At the core, this is because you feel the added lines of play, or synergies if you will, make Mulldrifter a more clever card than Cloudblazer. I feel evoke mainly makes Mulldrifter a more flexible and powerful card, and thus more of a generic value card than Cloudblazer, a situation that is compounded by the fact that Mulldrifter is monocolored. The reason we've been having this discussion is because I don't think it's fair that you're docking points from Cloudblazer for being a generic value card, while Mulldrifter, from my point of view, is a far worse offender on that axis.

Other than that I've got no quarrel with you or your love for Mulldrifter. First pick it, play it, blink it for four cards in turn five, go nuts and have fun!

And thus we end up with exactly what I was getting at with the first post to page 6; some people go lower power for more complexity, others go lower power for less complexity. The entire argument for Mulldrifter being a better card than Cloudblazer is about it offering more complex interactions that make it more powerful in the hands of a skilled player. Which, I mean... yeah, duh.

But again, going back to the OP, I'd really like if this thread was given some breathing space for those interested in the idea. I think japahn defined his perspective of elegance pretty well, and there's been some loose collection of people who grasp that definition, and it seems really unnecessary to commandeer this thread for discussions about competing perspectives on elegance, because there's a space for the high complexity, lower power cards already: Lower Power Card Spotlight. This would make a great place for the low complexity, lower power cards to be pooled and discussed, especially for those of us looking into making introductory formats and adding even simpler tools to our lists.

Again, you seem to understand my point of view perfectly. Also, sorry for derailing the thread. I do think Cloudblazer is a very clean and crisp design, a desirable include if you're , and a satisfying play during a match.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Thank you, I was getting frustrated there, especially after I had previously made this post, and this post, about where I think value cards have a place in cube (which was also reflected by my original statement). Mulldrifter is consistent with that philosophy: though, I'm actually fairly tepid about it, and were it not for all of the play evoke offers, I would not run it. If he had bothered to look at my new list, for example, which is designed to severely cut down on ETB effects (which was not in the penny cube's initial specs, which I also stated), he would have noticed that it lacks mulldrifter, for instance.

Shriekmaw is another card that I like at least conceptually for similar reasons, but I can run bone shredder for a more reasonable alternative.

I clicked on the link in your signature and clicked on the CubeTutor link provided in that post. Please don't hold it against me that that didn't lead me to an up to date list. Also, sorry for frustrating you. It's probably because I can't quite make you understand my point, or at least can't gauge if you get what I'm getting at. I have the feeling you don't, but that might as well be because communicating in text is much harder than talking face to face.

Edit: Also, I have way too much patience for long discussions that boil down to aggravatingly nuanced differences in opinion on a very semantic level and I'm driven not by a wish to convince people of my point but by a wish to make people understand my point of view. Usually this means I just get into these endless discussions until someone says "yes, I get what you mean but I don't agree" or "you're just splitting hairs again, aren't you?" Sorry for that (but still , because I love discussions)

 

[sigh]

I'm on board with RavebornMuse's suggestion. Here's a switch that's gone through my head a few times in the past
->
Converge really isn't my cup of tea in Cube (standard was another story lol). It's just so much mana and reading baggage for what should be a simple effect. Anger of the gods is much, much more straightforward, provides all the value you wanted to get from Flames without having to jump through hoops, and for me has that magical exile clause. I see myself making this switch to clear out the clutter of Radiant Flames being much harder than it should be to comprehend and utilize.

I'm actually amazed there hasn't been a straight up "3 mana -> Deal 3 to all" spell. They all have at least some sort of rider. Huh. For maximum simplicity, it looks like we still only really have our little buddy

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I'm on the fence about converge as well. On the one hand I have an environment with a clear focus on shards, on the other hand there isn't really enough cards to have a meaningful density of cards with the keyword, meaning you have to read the effect each time. Somehow reading a card without a keyword is less annoying than having to interpret a keyword that you don't know.

 

[RavebornMuse]

My biggest issue with Anger of the Gods is that it shuts down reanimator strategies in a colour that relies on small bodies to enable said strategies (Goblin Welder, Alesha, Who Smiles at Death, and Feldon of the Third Path). I don't think Radiant Flames is winning many elegant contests, but it's been a hit over here, and I see it as being pretty low on the complexity scale.

Actually, developing a complexity scale might be an even better usage of this thread.. But I assume we're going to need a lot more posts before it begins to emerge.

 

[sigh]

My biggest issue with Anger of the Gods is that it shuts down reanimator strategies in a colour that relies on small bodies to enable said strategies (Goblin Welder, Alesha, Who Smiles at Death, and Feldon of the Third Path). I don't think Radiant Flames is winning many elegant contests, but it's been a hit over here, and I see it as being pretty low on the complexity scale.

Actually, developing a complexity scale might be an even better usage of this thread.. But I assume we're going to need a lot more posts before it begins to emerge.

Yeah it isn't ideal. I honestly do wish there was just a straight up deal 3 for 3. Radiant Flames has been able to keep it's spot for now, but it's annoying to have to splash a third color for your on-color red spell just to maximize it. Though maybe "mini-game" is the right phrase? Depends on the player.

Probably a good choice, and about as close as we've gotten to a straight-up version of the effect is

It doesn't have the exile effect, if that is overbearing, it has an option of giving yourself reach. I like both options a little better than Radiant Flames, but I'm not sure if enough to make a swap yet. One thing, for instance, that I don't like about Slagstorm is the old "choose one" formatting. The bullets are sooo much better!

 

[Chris Taylor]

I mean there's firespout, but that's about the least elegant red spell I've ever ran (since the green mode does next to nothing on its own, but it's in no way required enough to be a Multicolour spell like it looks)