Well, in a vacuum the newer cards respectively are better and without being too good or anything. What's better for balancing is something you have to find out. Are the commons actually commons, or is every card equally likely to be opened? Also, I'd be vary about Tireless Tracker in general. It was far too good for my cube and I'm not sure a cube just containing Innistrad cards will be suited to handle it's power.
General Fight Club
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
tireless tracker shouldn’t be in a retail cube unless you want to emulate the VOW format’s bomb density
Having faced Tireless Tracker in innistrad limited I can confirm that it is busted.
Thanks. I shouldn't have mentioned Tireless Tracker at all, it's more of a generic goodstuff card than any other payoff.
It's not a retail cube, it's more of a prized amalgam of all three Innistrad blocks, with some thematic bits and bobs thrown in from other places. We're shooting for a power level higher than retail but lower than Modern cube. Still discovering and refining the themes and mechanics, but it's been great fun - this is the first time we try our hand at a graveyard cube.
Bomb density is something we're keeping in mind. There's a watchlist, and we've currently blacklisted Avacyn, Angel of Hope, partly because it doesn't play well with reanimation, and partly because we don't have very fond memories of Avacyn Restored
It's not a retail cube, it's more of a prized amalgam of all three Innistrad blocks, with some thematic bits and bobs thrown in from other places. We're shooting for a power level higher than retail but lower than Modern cube. Still discovering and refining the themes and mechanics, but it's been great fun - this is the first time we try our hand at a graveyard cube.
Bomb density is something we're keeping in mind. There's a watchlist, and we've currently blacklisted Avacyn, Angel of Hope, partly because it doesn't play well with reanimation, and partly because we don't have very fond memories of Avacyn Restored
vs For a cube with a some graveyard themes, which is preferable? Charm is very versatile, but casting twice off of mending seems good with spells matter stuff.
I'd rather play Mending of the two of them. For the Azorius decks I usually draft card quality is often times more important than card quantity. You can make up the minor disadvantage you get from a looting effect if it means that you get to nab multiple creatures with a wrath or set up an opening to stick a relevant piece of card advantage or a win-con. The opportunity to flash it back later at instant speed when you have manu up for interaction is also a plus.
Thank youu all. Honestly I can't belive it took me more than a second to realize this is just instant speed faithless looting. Definitely running Mend in that case, especially since it's more for the controlly decks than any other.
Might being a spell itself be worth more than counting opponent's graveyard and sometimes looting in the spells deck? Note, the spells deck usually only has about ~three cards that care about spells, but of course working with Talrand and Pteramander is a relevant upside still.
Might being a spell itself be worth more than counting opponent's graveyard and sometimes looting in the spells deck? Note, the spells deck usually only has about ~three cards that care about spells, but of course working with Talrand and Pteramander is a relevant upside still.
ing either one will kill all creatures which do not have any +1/+1 counters or any other toughness boosting going on. How much reanimate does your cube have? Or is it geared towards returning sorcery cards from the graveyard?
I would count how many instants/sorcerys you have in exile and compare them to the number of instants/sorcery in the opponents graveyard.
There is a Bx reanimator theme and even larger madness support in all nonwhite colors. But I don't think that either deck would really want the Elite. It's too slow and not great in those decks, which tend to only run a handful of spells most of the time. So the looting wouldn't be much more than it is on face value. The best I can imagine happening with some regularity in spells decks is casting a random Fiery Temper off it.
Then an option is to add one of them (probably not the elite) and check whether you would rather have the other one. Or proxy a split version and see which side is used most...
Curve is simpler and probably better in the deck it wants to go into. unless you do multiplayer in which case elites can just be HUGE
Synergizing with flashback et al is huge for Curve. A couple flashbacks and the token still starts out as a 3/3 before even considering any spells left in the GY.
Like any cards that solely rely on counting a GY (besides maybe Tarmogoyf), it can be a tad mediocre on curve unless you do nothing but curve out on spells, at which point it's a 4/4 for 4
Like any cards that solely rely on counting a GY (besides maybe Tarmogoyf), it can be a tad mediocre on curve unless you do nothing but curve out on spells, at which point it's a 4/4 for 4
Yeah, Curve is solid because it counts instants and sorceries you have exiled as well.
On a similar (albeit non-blue) note, may I interest you in a
?
EDIT: Is judging cards based on how well they "curve out" really appropriate when looking at cards for a "spells" deck? I've always associated that term with more permanent-heavy decks, since their cards naturally stick around (meaning you get more value out of playing them "on time"). I always end up looking at "spells" cards with the idea that you're generally not looking to tap out when you're playing them.
It gets even more confusing when you're looking at cards like Academy Elite et al, where they give you more value the later you play them. I read them as a way to make a "spell velocity" plan survive the transition into a top-deck war — those cantrips and enablers you spent liberally earlier in the game mean that Serpentine Curve (or whatever) topdecks as a big ol' fatty.
...
I feel like a thread on how to evaluate cards for different archetypes, based off of the game plans of those decks, could be a good time...
On a similar (albeit non-blue) note, may I interest you in a
?EDIT: Is judging cards based on how well they "curve out" really appropriate when looking at cards for a "spells" deck? I've always associated that term with more permanent-heavy decks, since their cards naturally stick around (meaning you get more value out of playing them "on time"). I always end up looking at "spells" cards with the idea that you're generally not looking to tap out when you're playing them.
It gets even more confusing when you're looking at cards like Academy Elite et al, where they give you more value the later you play them. I read them as a way to make a "spell velocity" plan survive the transition into a top-deck war — those cantrips and enablers you spent liberally earlier in the game mean that Serpentine Curve (or whatever) topdecks as a big ol' fatty.
...
I feel like a thread on how to evaluate cards for different archetypes, based off of the game plans of those decks, could be a good time...
Last edited:
It's useful to see how the card fares if you need to cast it ASAP for whatever reason. Most spells deck I know are trying to use all their mana every turn and if you need a blocker or something...
Cards like the Augur you pictured are my favorite cards for this deck because they do well in both situations; offering value as needed on-curve and then powering up, or coming in more powerful later.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Yeah, Curve is solid because it counts instants and sorceries you have exiled as well.
On a similar (albeit non-blue) note, may I interest you in a
EDIT: Is judging cards based on how well they "curve out" really appropriate when looking at cards for a "spells" deck? I've always associated that term with more permanent-heavy decks, since their cards naturally stick around (meaning you get more value out of playing them "on time"). I always end up looking at "spells" cards with the idea that you're generally not looking to tap out when you're playing them.
It gets even more confusing when you're looking at cards like Academy Elite et al, where they give you more value the later you play them. I read them as a way to make a "spell velocity" plan survive the transition into a top-deck war — those cantrips and enablers you spent liberally earlier in the game mean that Serpentine Curve (or whatever) topdecks as a big ol' fatty.
...
I feel like a thread on how to evaluate cards for different archetypes, based off of the game plans of those decks, could be a good time...
Augur is nice, but I don't run spells payoffs in mono red, as I sculpted that theme as a blue pivot archetype. Scaling is nice, obviously, but I don't think blue has that option right now.
I can't say for sure, as I run some flashback cards and some decks are very low on instants/sorceries, but I'd say Academy will usually be slightly bigger than Serpentine, maybe +1/+1 on average.
I own the Elite, so I will test it a little more, but I think I'll buy a copy of the Serpentine Curve at some point and replace the creature with it. Having a crucial piece for the spell deck being a spell iself is probably worth losing the loot and occasional +1/+1.
I think Curve plays better, but the designer in me would go for Elite just because I'm not too into Curve counting cards in exile.
There's also Cryptic Serpent who is out here trying to be a fair Murktide Regent if you're into that. Doesn't play as well with spell recursion or copying if you have any of those, and has a worse ceiling, but the floor is better and it's easier to protect.
There's also Cryptic Serpent who is out here trying to be a fair Murktide Regent if you're into that. Doesn't play as well with spell recursion or copying if you have any of those, and has a worse ceiling, but the floor is better and it's easier to protect.
vs vs