i’ve done it, it’s pretty aight. will probably do it again
General Fight Club
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
I've written a very long post while being on the road only to see now some aspects have at least partially be covered, but I'll post it anyway. Still think some points might help our discussion:
Cube is a really complex topic where so many factors have to be considered. That makes it dificult to talk about it generally. You sometimes can't really two specific cubes. So I want to talk about my cube a little bit. Not (only) because I like talking about my cube, but because I think it might add something to this fixing discussion. But first, let me start with another controversial statement.
I don't think we should call out 50 fixing cycles as the golden number.
That is because I think two things have been ignored in all this complicated math we've done so far attempting to analyze a subtheme of our niche hobby (that's passion, though!). One of those aspects looks like this:
Not only lands are mana fixing. Let's take the artifact above as an example (although many artifacts, creatures, sorceries or enchantments could be used as an example). If my esper control deck holds a starting seven with an island, a plaind and the Dimir Signet, I am good to go! Of course, if your format istblacksmithy's too fast to play a mana rock on turn two, this doesn't count, but in many formats playing a Signet on that turn is something you'd like to do anyway. And it ramps too! That means even in a Izzet deck, the Dimir Signet can work as fixing, as it's castable with two mountains!
But there is another point widely ignored as far as I've followed the recent pages:
There are so many good rainbow fixers, I bet almost every cube will have at least a few, most likely though a relevant number for this equation. Sure, these can and will be more contested when adequat to the cube's power level, but they act as substitutes for all ten color pairs!
I could bring up a third point in "most base green decks probably don't even need fixing lands in most formats to just cast their spells", or talk about other ways to fix mana like cheap cantrips/draw spells/MDFCs with lands on the back/landcyclers/scry an surveil etc. But I wanna focus on what is equally true for all color pairs. And this brings me back to my cube.
I know my cube is it's own story too, but I don't think it is too dramatically far from anything you could call "lower powered".
I run 680 cards (no math here, just what fits comfortably into my box, I like variety) and only 5 fixing lands for each color pair, and between one and two mana rocks (the green pairs have a signet only but no talisman, they just don'tneed this as much as stated before). I also run 6 rainbow fixing lands and two colorless artifacts that fix for five colors.
My most common playstyle is a 4-person-draft with four packs a 15 cards, the last 4 of each pack will be burned. That means we have 4 players and we'll see 240 cards. 240 if 680 is roughly 35%. That means of the 5 Boros lands my cube contains, only 1.75 will appear in such a draft. But add to that the Boros mana rocks and you're already at 2.45 fixing cards that you will probably habe for yourself. But that doesn't include my rainbow fixers. If I add them and then divide them through four (to consider how everyone could want them) I am at 3.15 cards already. Seriously, if three actual fixing pieces are relatively easy to pick up for a person (not playing green!) that should be enough for anything that could be called lower power. I am not talking retail limited, just clearly below "power max" cubes. So I think all of these points should be included in most people consideration:
- how many non-land mana fixers does a cilor pair have?
- how many rainbow fixers will be available in a draft?
- how much fixing do the colors (green) provide their color pairs?
- how prevalent are smoothing mechanics in my cube?
And, of course:
- how forgiving is your environment when a player uses his first two or even three turns to set up their mana?
I think with all these factors, many cubes don't need a dual land rate of 50/360. They can work perfectly fine while also add more variance through non-fixing cards in draft pools. I seriously don't remember the last time someone was color screwed drafting my cube. It definitely happens in less than 5% of games, which is a rate I wouldn't want to dicrease by also decreasing variance through cutting spells and interesting non-fixing lands.
Of course it depends as well on the amount of colors you want your decks to have. And here comes my last point, but I acknowledge that this one is more specific to my environment. I try actively to support mono color decks (through mechanics/a handful of specific cards). I have a hard time saying how many decks actually end up mono color due to scarce cubing opportunities during the last year, but I aim for roughly 20% monocolored decks. If we draft with four and one person is on mono black, that means the chance of getting rainbow fixers is quite a bit higher for the others. Also, more duals floating around might make another person going into 3 or 4 colors. So my last point is:
- Do you support mono color? if you do, you need less fixing for the whole table.
Cube is a really complex topic where so many factors have to be considered. That makes it dificult to talk about it generally. You sometimes can't really two specific cubes. So I want to talk about my cube a little bit. Not (only) because I like talking about my cube, but because I think it might add something to this fixing discussion. But first, let me start with another controversial statement.
I don't think we should call out 50 fixing cycles as the golden number.
That is because I think two things have been ignored in all this complicated math we've done so far attempting to analyze a subtheme of our niche hobby (that's passion, though!). One of those aspects looks like this:
Not only lands are mana fixing. Let's take the artifact above as an example (although many artifacts, creatures, sorceries or enchantments could be used as an example). If my esper control deck holds a starting seven with an island, a plaind and the Dimir Signet, I am good to go! Of course, if your format ist
But there is another point widely ignored as far as I've followed the recent pages:
There are so many good rainbow fixers, I bet almost every cube will have at least a few, most likely though a relevant number for this equation. Sure, these can and will be more contested when adequat to the cube's power level, but they act as substitutes for all ten color pairs!
I could bring up a third point in "most base green decks probably don't even need fixing lands in most formats to just cast their spells", or talk about other ways to fix mana like cheap cantrips/draw spells/MDFCs with lands on the back/landcyclers/scry an surveil etc. But I wanna focus on what is equally true for all color pairs. And this brings me back to my cube.
I know my cube is it's own story too, but I don't think it is too dramatically far from anything you could call "lower powered".
I run 680 cards (no math here, just what fits comfortably into my box, I like variety) and only 5 fixing lands for each color pair, and between one and two mana rocks (the green pairs have a signet only but no talisman, they just don'tneed this as much as stated before). I also run 6 rainbow fixing lands and two colorless artifacts that fix for five colors.
My most common playstyle is a 4-person-draft with four packs a 15 cards, the last 4 of each pack will be burned. That means we have 4 players and we'll see 240 cards. 240 if 680 is roughly 35%. That means of the 5 Boros lands my cube contains, only 1.75 will appear in such a draft. But add to that the Boros mana rocks and you're already at 2.45 fixing cards that you will probably habe for yourself. But that doesn't include my rainbow fixers. If I add them and then divide them through four (to consider how everyone could want them) I am at 3.15 cards already. Seriously, if three actual fixing pieces are relatively easy to pick up for a person (not playing green!) that should be enough for anything that could be called lower power. I am not talking retail limited, just clearly below "power max" cubes. So I think all of these points should be included in most people consideration:
- how many non-land mana fixers does a cilor pair have?
- how many rainbow fixers will be available in a draft?
- how much fixing do the colors (green) provide their color pairs?
- how prevalent are smoothing mechanics in my cube?
And, of course:
- how forgiving is your environment when a player uses his first two or even three turns to set up their mana?
I think with all these factors, many cubes don't need a dual land rate of 50/360. They can work perfectly fine while also add more variance through non-fixing cards in draft pools. I seriously don't remember the last time someone was color screwed drafting my cube. It definitely happens in less than 5% of games, which is a rate I wouldn't want to dicrease by also decreasing variance through cutting spells and interesting non-fixing lands.
Of course it depends as well on the amount of colors you want your decks to have. And here comes my last point, but I acknowledge that this one is more specific to my environment. I try actively to support mono color decks (through mechanics/a handful of specific cards). I have a hard time saying how many decks actually end up mono color due to scarce cubing opportunities during the last year, but I aim for roughly 20% monocolored decks. If we draft with four and one person is on mono black, that means the chance of getting rainbow fixers is quite a bit higher for the others. Also, more duals floating around might make another person going into 3 or 4 colors. So my last point is:
- Do you support mono color? if you do, you need less fixing for the whole table.
I think I will anyways
.Based on all the math tossed around above I see it as a robust number of dual land fixing sources for many formats. Can different amounts work? Of course, but if you are starting from a blank piece of paper, 50 is a solid choice for dual land count. It's a generalized statement not meant to take a designers specific tinkering into account.
If you are using signets, those can be called out as dual lands in the math, because they function very similarly, with some concession that they will probably be slightly more sought after than lands. If you run 40 dual lands and 10 signets, in my mind you are still running 50 "dual land sources". In your case I would say you are running a bit above 70 sources considering the rainbow lands, but also have a much larger cube pool so your as-fan is about the same as a 360 cube with 40 lands. This is exactly what I would expect from your format considering your desire to support 1 color decks, and seems to line up well with my above argument for 50 in a "blank-slate" riptide format. And lines up well with your last point:
I think all of these are good questions to ask oneself, and questions we should all be asking in order to take broad statements on cube features and turn them into specific inclusions for our formats.
I see it being a real hit on BTP thoughWell, reading my own post again, I think 50 cycles of duals would actually be a bit too much
That would add up to 500 of 360 cards be mana fixing!
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
oh my gosh this is a great idea actuallyI mean, the BTP solution would be to turn gold cards into MDFCs.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Okay, small problem: The average deck doesn't want a mana rock, or at least not every deck wants a mana rock.That is because I think two things have been ignored in all this complicated math we've done so far attempting to analyze a subtheme of our niche hobby (that's passion, though!). One of those aspects looks like this:
Traditional aggro decks where your curve tops out at ~3 four drops, a signet is often worse than a basic. Given aggro decks need the consistency more than decks tending to go long (Needing WW on turn 2 for your 2 drop is SIGNIFICANTLY harder than needing WW on turn 4 to cast wrath of god), I think it's probably better to not include rocks in your math. They're there for upside for some drafters, but you're probably better off underestimating how much fixing each drafter will get, rather than overestimating.
Also, one thing this whole discussion brings into sharp relief: the vintage cube in my playgroup runs ~40 lands at 360.
No wonder the accepted pick order is Power > Fixing > Any other card in the cube.
We have a peasent cube we play occasionally with 24 lands at 540 (Ie 4.44% fixing, 16 lands at 360)
Now I know why Rob hates drafting the thing...
True, but the same could be said about control not being as interested in City of Brass, Horizon Canopy or even Sulfurous Springs. The thing is, duals are added during drafting, so craft your deck accordings to the fixing you get. If I pick up a Boros Signet in pack 1 I surely won't build a low to the ground aggro deck. I agree though that it is inconvinient later in the draft, but I don't think not counting the signet-family at all is the solution. They work well with ~70%+ of decks in most formats I'd assume.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Is City of Brass is worse than a basic for a control deck? Painlands certainly aren't
Also my point is that even if 70% of the decks want a signet, the 30% remaining is the drafters who need fixing most, and overestimating (by counting signets as fixing) does your worst case scenario a disservice
Also my point is that even if 70% of the decks want a signet, the 30% remaining is the drafters who need fixing most, and overestimating (by counting signets as fixing) does your worst case scenario a disservice
I may or may not have missed your details section
So, your math is good, although the section about 3c land distribution only applies to 3c decks that want to start their curve on turn two. As we see with the numbers Onder provided...
If you want to cast a spell (or use a colored mana pip) on turn 1, you need roughly 10 untapped sources of a given color. Assuming an even distribution of colors between duals (and 16 lands just to make the math clean so this doesn't have to be 2000 words long
), 12 duals is actually roughly where you want to be (8 duals that can produce a given color, plus 2 basics for a totla of 10 sources, not counting Prismatic Vista, only running 16 lands because decks playing 1-drops usually have lower curves and need less total lands). A lot of Cubes will have Value Aggro Drops/Cantrips/Hand Disruption/1 MV removal for small things/Mana Dorks that one would still want to cast in a 3c deck, preferrably on turn 1. For example, in my last draft, I was playing Sultai Midrange, but I had three blue cantrips, Abundant Harvest, and Thoughtseize in my deck, all of which I wanted to be able to cast on turn 1 to help fuel my delve threats and whatnot. So in that deck, having 12 dual lands would actually be completely warranted if I wanted that 90% success ratio.But my example is obviously not every Cube, and since most of the Cubes around here tend to have turn 2 proactive decks to begin with, the numbers you show are fine. I do think it is worth noting the difference in fixing required for decks that do things on turn 1, and decks that can wait until turn two, but I don't think that's central to the argument.
Again, thanks for the interesting food for thought
.That certainly is a problem. You're definitely right here.
Well, I think control decks don't want to play City or a horizon land unless they are really starving for fixing. There are a few more, like Gemstone Mine or of course Mana Confluence. Maybe running those and a few horizon lands helps aggro a little bit to get more fixing?
I guess it helps to a degree when aggro doesn't need to curve out 1-drop, 2-drop every game in a given environment to compete. So, maybe, lower power tends to need less fixing?
I admit, I also just don't want to look for ten painful cuts to add a cycle of fast lands
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Just increase the number of cards in your cube (by adding lands without cutting any nonland) and add a 16th card to your boosters that gets seeded with mana fixing!I admit, I also just don't want to look for ten painful cuts to add a cycle of fast lands
Chris Taylor
Contributor
This sort of thing is mostly why I run so many Prismatic VistasThat certainly is a problem. You're definitely right here.
Well, I think control decks don't want to play City or a horizon land unless they are really starving for fixing. There are a few more, like Gemstone Mine or of course Mana Confluence. Maybe running those and a few horizon lands helps aggro a little bit to get more fixing?
I guess it helps to a degree when aggro doesn't need to curve out 1-drop, 2-drop every game in a given environment to compete. So, maybe, lower power tends to need less fixing?
I admit, I also just don't want to look for ten painful cuts to add a cycle of fast lands
I mean I don't either, but that's more because I think there is a range of fixing values that is going to be correct for most environments. Even if monocolor is supported, I don't believe the golden number is ever going to be much lower than 45 lands per 360 cards.
So I really disagree with this point. I support both Mono-Red and Mono-White aggro decks in my Cube, along with Green ramp strategies that can effectively function as monocolor until ~50% of the game has already passed, and I don't find that the presence of these archetypes actually decreases the need for fixing in any noticible capacity. While it is true that having extra cards removed to add more fixing disproportionally affects monocolor as opposed to multicolor decks (since monocolor won't necessarily benefit from the added fixing and has a smaller card pool to begin with), most of the issues caused by smaller total card pool can usually be resolved by tight design and good layering of slots.
What's more is that these decks will still often be happy to take a couple of dual lands to help splash a cool gold card or something that can help their game plan. For example, a Mono-Red player might want to play Showdown of the Skalds or some Boros Burn spells in their deck. Even though they might technically not be monocolor at that point, they're not going deep enough on a second color to really be considered multicolor at least as far as impact on the larger draft environment might be concerned.
Chris already hit on this pretty well, but signets really cannot replace lands in a lot of decks. This issue doesn't just effect the small subset of Cubes similar to Blacksmithy's, but a rather large swath of Cubes that includes a lot of Cubes on this site. Archetypes that are reliant on spell velocity (Aggro, Prowess, Dork Ramp, Cycling, Reanimator, etc), really can't afford to wait until turn three to start casting actual spells. For literally every deck where a one or two drop is important, signets can't replace a land effectively.That is because I think two things have been ignored in all this complicated math we've done so far attempting to analyze a subtheme of our niche hobby (that's passion, though!). One of those aspects looks like this:
Not only lands are mana fixing. Let's take the artifact above as an example (although many artifacts, creatures, sorceries or enchantments could be used as an example). If my esper control deck holds a starting seven with an island, a plaind and the Dimir Signet, I am good to go! Of course, if your format istblacksmithy'stoo fast to play a mana rock on turn two, this doesn't count, but in many formats playing a Signet on that turn is something you'd like to do anyway. And it ramps too! That means even in a Izzet deck, the Dimir Signet can work as fixing, as it's castable with two mountains!
Meanwhile, controlling decks get a huge boost from signets that they don't get from normal lands which can potentially have an adverse effect on faster archetypes. If a control deck can cast Wrath of God or a reactive midrange deck can slam a Siege Rhino on turn three, an opposing aggro player is player is probably not winning that game. Signets are hard to interact with, so unlike creature-based forms of ramp, they can often operate unopposed. Lands don't ramp the player to mana levels they shouldn't naturally have at the stage of the game at which they are played, so they do not have this issue.
I really like @Cultic Cube 's video on the topic if you would like to see another perspective.
I think rainbow fixers have been factored in to the land counts we've been discussing so far. The conversation has definitely been framed mostly around dual lands because they're the easiest to quantify, but it's not like City of Brass changes the % numbers so much to completely throw a wrench in the math. What's more is that there are usually only a few cards of this category that are playable at a given power level, so their impact is going to be felt much less than they might otherwise be.But there is another point widely ignored as far as I've followed the recent pages:
There are so many good rainbow fixers, I bet almost every cube will have at least a few, most likely though a relevant number for this equation. Sure, these can and will be more contested when adequat to the cube's power level, but they act as substitutes for all ten color pairs!
In my experience most people want to draft their deck around the cool cards they pick up, not the fixing they have. If a person drafts Boros, they aren't necessarily going to draft a control deck just because they have Boros Signet instead of Sacred Foundary. It's more likely that they're just going to build their deck in a way that either excludes some cool cards for mana issues or just eats the win percentage decrease that will be caused by inevitable mana screw. That might be a desirable play for some designers, but that is going to be very frustrating for most drafters.
I'm not sure this has to do with power level so much as it has to do with game speed. I think a lot of your perspective might be being shaped by what appears to be a very slow game speed in your Cube. Your environment has a lot of design choices that seem to select for slower gameplay than most other environments. Cards like Vapor Snare, Soratami Cloudskater, Eternal Dragon, (fair) Golgari Grave-Troll and so on need slower games to function optimally. Which is totally cool! But also, when we're thinking about formats with longer games, we have to remember that players are simply going to have more time to draw the fixing they need when compared to faster formats. A player might be able to get by casting a three drop with 4 sources of the required color in a slow Cube because the impact of playing off curve is less punishing. Hell, I think that's one of the reasons why so many MTGS/MTGO "Powermax" Cubes play suboptimal fixing- they aren't designed for fast games and therefore don't need the same level of fixing as more streamlined environments.
Tl;dr this isn't a power level issue so much as it is a speed issue, although those two things aren't always unrelated.
Conclusion
I think overall there are a lot of aspects of this conversation you aren't considering. Most environments are probably going to need more fixing than the ratio you run, but there are definitely some Cubes that would likely be good with the fixing ratio you run. There are just so many facets of this hobby that there isn't one correct answer (as we've seen in my exchange with Sigh
). However, my original points still stands.
Last edited:
But as soon as they are picking duals and splash for a couple cards, they are affecting the draft more like a
-drafter than a -drafter, because they are taking the fixing and they keep an eye out for potentially interesting cards in white. As a draft go, they might even expand their white splash when enough tempting stuff comes around. Personally, I start most of my drafts sticking to one color and then I'll decide within the first 1.5 packs what other colors to add, maybe change lanes or stick or stay mono colored. Sure, one should always stay vigilant, but in my format (remember I said that whole point was very format dependent), if I already picked up Nantuko Shade and Tymaret, Chosen by Death, I'll pick Gravedigger over Restoration Gearsmith. Again, support monocolor includes to me to have a low number of gold cards (30/680 for me) and not to have them be too far above the mono colored cards in terms of power. Maybe my definition wasn't clear enough, but just having an environment where two-and-a-half mono decks are showing up somtimes (but often with a splash) isn't what I thought of when I wrote "support monocolor" before.Yeah, you're right, I still sometimes mix up speed and power level, which is totally wrong. A good exemplification would be how a signet is a decent first pick in both, my low powered Casual Champions Cube and the Magic Online Vintage Cube. They vary widely in power level but both are probably on the slower end of the spectrum.
Thank you for clarifying that! Seriously. Here my tired head made me really write false information down.
I know about the signet concerns, I have for a long time and kept an eye on them, but those probems just doesn't seem to apply to my format. I have good ramp like the signets and 1-mana dorks, but I just don't have cards to ramp out of the caliber of Wrath of God or Siege Rhino. The worst possible road block a signet can put in front of an aggro deck turn four would probably be something like Deadbridge Goliath ... which still can be answered with non-toughness-based removal.
100% agree with this!
And this whole discussion has motivated me to finally proxy up Prismatic Vista now, so I got that going for me which is nice.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Vista is great, I've been running it for 20 years
That's really not how these drafts tend to work out in practice, at least for the types of decks I was using as my example. Mono-color aggro decks try to avoid extra colors to allow players to trim out lands that would be required for playing extra colors so they can jam in more cheap creaures and burn. Splashing in that case is only reserved for extreme power outliars that could make the deck significantly better, such as the aformentioned cracked gold cards like Showdown of the Skalds. Even if a mono-color player starts taking fixing for their splash card at the same rate as someone who is actively multicolor, that doesn't mean they are going to start taking nonland cards at the same rate. In my Cube, for example, the only White card a mono-red player might be interested in outside of the boros gold cards is Monastery Mentor. Pretty much every other White card wants support from a group of other White cards to be good, so they're not viable options as just a splash. A straight aggro deck is usually going to be better if it can stick to mostly one color (with one or at most two splash cards), so they aren't going to end up taking solid cards of another color in the same way a flat 2-color player would. The only way the player would end up acting like a two-color drafter is if they fully commit to the second color in that context.But as soon as they are picking duals and splash for a couple cards, they are affecting the draft more like a
Basically, high fixing density alone isn't going to pull a mono-color aggro player out of their lane, even if it does facilitate a minor splash. Some other material condition within the draft would need to change in order to make the drafter move in a different direction.
Do you mean "Support decks with cards using lots of the same type of mana pip" when you say "Support Monocolor?" If so, then that's going to lead to different outcomes than a Cube where decks that have monocolor decks for increased consistency. A deck trying to cast Archangel of Tithes or something probably isn't going to want to be playing a second color (at least heavily) if the goal is to cast the angel on curve. Likewise, a deck trying to leverage a Dread Shade is going to want to play as many swamps as possible. In a similar vein, a devotion card really isn't interested in being in a deck with cards of other colors. High pip decks don't really function like aggro decks such as Mono-Red burn, which usually just stays in one color for consistency's sake.
It's still worth noting that some of these "high pip" cards still benefit from having extra fixing in a given environment. They're actually a lot like gold cards in the sense that they have increased colored mana requirements in order to cast. In a format with more fixing, the aformentioned Archangel of Tithes goes from being a card only desired by Mono-White to being a card that decks like Azorius control can use. However, in an environment where these cards are being used explicitly to make Devotion/Chroma/Adamant Shenanigans better, the restrictive casting cost is likely a feature and not a bug.
This has been a very interesting conversation, thank you so much for your input!
Slaying fire is a decent incentive for red heavy decks, but yeah they didn't even make one rare with it...
Cryptic Command and Counterspell are pretty good mono color incentives
When I am splashing white in a mostly mono red deck, I would still want as much fixing as in a straight boros deck. Maybe even more, because I want as few lands that don't produce
as possible, yet I need a certain amount of sources still to cast something like the mentor on curve. Sure, they might not compete for white cards just like a two-color drafter, but they do compete at least very similarly for the fixing in my experience.Yes, that's what I mean. I have 4-5 cards in each color, that either have a high pip requirement, count your number of <basic land>, or come with keywords like devotion, chroma or adamant (@LadyMapi I am quite happy with
and , although the payoff is minimal and the cards fine without adamant, players like to play their cards optimally).I also run some heavy pip hybrids like Nightveil Specter or stuff like Voracious Hatchling, which can be played in their respective color combination but also work as incentive for two mono color decks. And I got a few colorless cards like Strata Scythe and Endless Atlas that work best in monocolor decks.
I can echo that compliment, RTL is eaily the most friendly and positive magic community in the internet, while also containing rich knowledge
Honestly, my beef with Adamant is that most of the cards need to be cast with Adamant to even feel average. And, while Chroma and Devotion also give you an incentive to stay in your lane while drafting, they do so in a much more interesting way.
Now that I look at them more closely, though, I do like Slaying Fire (my brain was editing that "any target" to "target creature or planeswalker"... now that's a big difference!) and Foreboding Fruit (which is pretty cute).
Now that I look at them more closely, though, I do like Slaying Fire (my brain was editing that "any target" to "target creature or planeswalker"... now that's a big difference!) and Foreboding Fruit (which is pretty cute).
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
This is actually a great adamant card as well. The base stats are meh but serviceable if you can't get three mana of the same color, but the upside is a color agnostic Priest of Ancient Lore that trades the 1 life gain for two points of toughness and cross synergy with artifacts. I'ld even go so far to say that all the uncommons with adamant offer a fair effect for the cost, even without adamant, it's just that those effects are not really desirable for the cost. Take for example Cauldron's Gift. The baseline is a Zombify that is immune to targeted graveyard removal and puts a +1/+1 counter on the reanimated creature.
seems like a totally fair baseline for that effect. It's just that in most of our cubes you'ld rather have the Zombify baseline at because cheaper is better / more playable. I think adamant is a fun mechanic to design custom cards for, actually, and I hope they revisit it sometime!