General Fight Club
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
This is generally a bad idea, but I'm not sure that rule applies to cube where I have generally found that consistency isn't necessarily what makes a good deck (assuming flatter power curve). When every card you draw is good, does it matter if your library is 40, 60 or 100 cards? Honest question. Wasn't meant as rhetorical.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
@CML: Are we? I haven't seen anyone bitching about the loss of value of Pod over here. On mtgs however... 
@ahadabans: Presumably, even if all of your cards are good, not all of your cards are equally good. In other words, if all of your cards are equal, some are bound to be more equal than others. Cutting down to the smallest allowed deck size doesn't ensure you have the greatest chance at drawing good cards, it ensures you have the greatest chance at drawing your best cards.
@ahadabans: Presumably, even if all of your cards are good, not all of your cards are equally good. In other words, if all of your cards are equal, some are bound to be more equal than others. Cutting down to the smallest allowed deck size doesn't ensure you have the greatest chance at drawing good cards, it ensures you have the greatest chance at drawing your best cards.
Never, ever, ever run 41+ cards. It is never right. There is always a last cut.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
The only time I can think of when running 41 is an option is in slow control (draw go) mirrors where decking is a legitimate way of winning. If you know you're that kind of deck, and you know there's one or more other that kind of decks, I could see starting 41 to win. Even then though, you could easily run 40 with a maindeck Compulsive Research or some such to force the lethal card draw on your opponent.
Hey there was that one time that French guy won a pro tour or something with a 61 card deck. It happens. It's all just a bunch of statistics that I for one am ill equipped to work out, so I'm open to the possibility of running 41+ cards. Sometimes 23 spells and 18 lands feels right.
wait aren't you a math major
CML
Contributor
i always liked to run 61 but this article http://www.channelfireball.com/arti...playing-more-than-60-cards-always-a-bad-idea/ is pretty convincing
even better if you read it to yourself in frank karsten's soothing dutch voice
even better if you read it to yourself in frank karsten's soothing dutch voice
This is the one good reason I've heard to justify running 41.
What if you're just playing for fun and making that last cut brings you more unhappiness than can be offset by potential gains in win expectancy?
I should stop posting.
gotta get that squadron pick battle of wits
Chris Taylor
Contributor
The thing I like about pod is that it's so little space dedicated to so much play. Maybe I'm just bored with green but there's not a lot of competition among the noncreature spells over there, and even if me and my scrubby friends don't jam pod every draft, it continutes to impress every time someone actually builds with it, which is about every other draft.
It's much worse in smaller draft groups (4 person drafts + Pod = The loosest chains you ever did see) and I've certainly had it fail from time to time, but It's really just so much for so little. I even have a prowess theme and it works.
Also, there's something to be said here about removal and ETB guys. Volcanic Hammer is a worse card than searing spear, but it isn't a lower power card. They have the same input/output, just one changes your sequencing decisions and the other means people feel horrible if they need to run angelic destiny in their final 40
It's much worse in smaller draft groups (4 person drafts + Pod = The loosest chains you ever did see) and I've certainly had it fail from time to time, but It's really just so much for so little. I even have a prowess theme and it works.
Also, there's something to be said here about removal and ETB guys. Volcanic Hammer is a worse card than searing spear, but it isn't a lower power card. They have the same input/output, just one changes your sequencing decisions and the other means people feel horrible if they need to run angelic destiny in their final 40
vs. 
Sounds like scylla and charybdi, but elspeth at least sounds somewhat beatable. Doesn't Gideon just completely refocus the game around him in a pretty unfun way? At least you can hope to ignore elspeth sometimes
I like having a white walker as a control finisher, both Elspeth and Gideon perform that role well. It's just that Elspeth has been a little obnoxious in recent drafts and I haven't played with Gideon in a while either. I don't remember which is more obnoxious. I do think the Gideon card has some really badass flavor though, and I like that he can be picked off with simple spot removal. Then again, he's basically indestructible versus a red deck unless they go big.
They're both pretty much the same power level to me, not sure which is more fun to play with though.
They're both pretty much the same power level to me, not sure which is more fun to play with though.
Isn't the real answer none of them? Or maybe I'm just too biased on idiot aggro.