Updated 2021.07.16 - update to approach & methodology
For those who haven't read Jason's CFB article on 4c grid, I suggest doing so prior to continuing on: http://www.channelfireball.com/home/grid-tenchester-and-cutting-a-color-from-the-cube/
Why am I obsessed with grid drafting (beyond it being insanely fun)? One, as Grillo postulated (assumedly) "[that it is most likely the best conventional draft simulator]", it is a one-versus-one Limited format where decks can come out looking like beautifully constructed draft decks. Two, the open information during drafting allows for a Constructed-metagame-approach to deck building (where sideboard cards may be maindecked or "name a card" abilities are useful from Turn 1 onward); I take a photo/screenshot of my opponents' pool prior to deck building to refer to and limit the necessity for memory during play. Three, given the correct exposure, I firmly believe grid drafting (or some variant of head-to-head drafting) could be a popular way to play with enjoyable cards that don't find home in competitive Constructed, Commander or traditional Cube Limited.
(The second and third posts link my active and retired grid populations.)
Background (a.k.a. Useless Fluff)
A few years ago, I tried to capture the excitement of my youth in a Solomon/Winston (two head-to-head drafting formats) designed "Cube" paying homage to IPA limited, but it never came together to really create an exciting gaming experience. So, I dissembled the disappointment, moved away from head-to-head drafting and starting chasing fantasy set design (similar to "set cubes").
By then, I'd read some of Jason's CFB articles and ended up here. Some of y'all took the initiative to get together a MTGO collection, and I got my first taste of grid drafting with @safra 's Sharzad (v.Around.BFZ.And.OGW.I.Guess), minus one color via Forum Games. It was everything I wanted in my one-versus-one Limited Magic. I even started down the path of distilling a Sharzad card population built specifically for grid drafting without a color, but beyond the cursory sketch, I abandoned the project.
Shortly after, a friend visited me and I assembled some sloppy grids from the my two Fantasy Set Cubes for us to draft and game. The more complicated Fantasy Set Cube grids were a trainwreck, but two of them from an OG-Ravnica-themed set of mostly commons and uncommons produced many fantastic games. We often played best of 7 or 9 games after drafting a pool. That weekend was enough to set me on the path to *really* think about what a cube constructed as self-contained grid drafting card pool would entail.
Designing for Head-to-Head Drafting: A Guide to Building a Grid (Cube)
Grid has felt like an ideal environment to cram parasitic (and/or healthy) themes down throats, like one might find in a retail Limited set or with Constructed decks. The format also seems ideal to create really weird metagames- the sort kitchen-deck battles of which many MTG players may be fond. There is an opportunity to provide game agency to both players and a variety of cards (but if the grid experience fails, only two individuals are impacted, and *hopefully* not past the point where they would glean some sort of enjoyment from the experience).
My approach for a while was to design either (1) variations of existing draft formats or (2) try to emulate some weird Extended or Standard metagame from a decade ago. Recently, I've enjoyed curating strange cube-like environments (peasant or lower power) through taking the core-set-synergy approach focusing on stringing a few cards interactions together as micro-archetypes rather than supporting 15 or so cards in an overtly macro-archetype.
When working on a grid, there is only one rule that I won't break: design the card population for primarily grid drafting. This is the most obvious rule (as grid drafting and three-packs-of-15, left-right-left drafting are quite different deck-building mechanisms) and the most important rule as it drastically shapes how the card population is constructed. It's my assumption that grid drafting sets a more restrictive environment from a design point of view and any other styles of drafting will be enjoyable if the card population is designed from solely the intention to be drafted in grids. (This assumption hasn't really been tested at all... lol.)
Grid drafting mechanics are a *lot* different than traditional cube, and the numbers of effect/card types and spells at particular mana costs should be considered under the unique implications of grid drafting.
General Attributes - Original Post https://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/im-going-gaga-for-grid-drafting.1522/post-65153
So what does building a healthy format around 14-18 "first", "second" ...and "third" picks really look like? I am by no means near the magic formulae for grids but have learned a few lessons about which attribute of a population really makes the format tick: the power band.
The majority of the population should be built within a tight power band, with some allowance for variation above and below the mean card (but not dramatically so). This is to fight against most 3x3 grids having "clear first picks" and to promote synergy-based card selection as means over overcoming the individual card power band.
As a grid designer, I really want to converge on a draft environment where players start by picking cards that are powerful in a vacuum or are exciting synergy enablers and then transition to picking cards to fill out their deck (rather than always slam the "strictly best" cards in each 3x3 and end up playing games that feel as though they came from super-sealed). The method of card selection in grid *really* punishes cards that are not in the higher power tiers given the population when there are dramatic outliers to take in their stead; cards that are not up to snuff will almost never be picked on purpose (and only end up available for deck building if a better pick was available in the same row or column). In conventional drafting, due to the nature of packs and picks, the lower-tier cards at least often end up in a drafter's pile of cards available for deck building when card selection has ceased (given their color(s) align with that of the drafter), but in grid drafting, they are simply discarded.
All of the following musings are in relation to the power band:
Density of effects (and their costs). This won't be a surprise to anyone, but trimming down the number of cards that were "just good" in favor for increasing the density of certain archetype-support cards (more token-makers in colors supporting the strategy, more 2-mana-value creatures to enable board presence for combat steps, etc.) was the first step to enabling more viable deck types during gameplay. Then, reducing the most powerful/efficient removal/disruption spells in quantity gave room to assemble interactions. After these changes, two-color synergy decks were proving viable against the 3-4c "goodstuff" monstrosities (and bouncelands or shocklands were going unpicked in favor of picking up synergy components).
I assume there is a formulaic approach to finding the correct densities of disruptive/synergy interaction along with the number of cards required at different mana/color costs *and* the lands available to pay for color requirements along different desired levels of power. I haven't worked through it for my different active grids (but it's on my wish list of mind-numbing hobby tasks to investigate). I also assume this all runs parallel to the "asfan" or Pack Size conversations (but I, ignorantly, also haven't delved into that topic).
Quantity versus quality. One tricky part was finding an average card power level such that the opportunity cost (opponent can take the powerful cards) of taking "less powerful" cards when choosing first isn't too high. Initially, one of my early grids seemed to favor 2-for-1 goodstuff piles with cards like Enlisted Wurm, Auratouched Mage and Compulsive Research dictating games' outcomes. During the actual card selection process, the slower pace of games led both players to selecting cards that provided card advantage regardless of color just so the opposing player wouldn't get too far ahead in the 2-for-1 slugout. Neither deck focused on synergies with both decks aiming to glean advantages of opportunity from the synergies here and there, should they arise during game play.
Most cards should naturally fit into multiple deck archetypes, especially if they are on the lower end of the power band (which should makeup a larger percentage of the population). This is to add incentive to picking a slightly less powerful card in tandem with an additional less powerful card or a card the opponent could play. Lands often will fall into this paradigm, but lower-tier removal and replaceable creatures or smoothing effects should as well.
High numbers of playables. Given the way picks in grid occur, a tight power band should lead to a *large* amount of playables for each drafter. This abundance of playables, coupled with the one-versus-one nature of the format should lead to hate-drafting as a strategy for some number of first-pick packs (most likely, during the mid-to-latter half of the grid). As players play "cat and mouse" to lay claim to particular colors or strategies, they should find speculative picks valuable in the early-to-middle portion of the draft.
With speculative and hate picks leading to a nonlinear pool of selected cards, players may find themselves able to support different archetypes than anticipated (especially within the colors selected) as pick selection progresses. With proper densities and power band maintained, the initial picks during drafting should never pigeonhole a player into a color or strategy, but instead give them the option to invest more if the opportunities arise. At the end of the draft, it shouldn't be uncommon for a multitude of different archetypes to be viable decks for a player (even if only two colors were drafted heavily); restrictive mana costs, interactive spells and curve considerations should be weighed against expected opposition to create some questions for the deck builder to address with their build (and possibly readdress in sideboarding).
Tricks to Manage the Power Band
With the power band firmly in mind, a few specific tactics (that many use in existing cube design) will assist tuning the card population and draft/play experiences:
Draft only a subset of the 162/180/etc total cards. After some 144 card populations were drafted in their entirety, card populations were increased to 162 cards (multiples of 18) where only 144 cards were meant to be drafted at a time. This was in direct response to players with familiarity drafting with 100 percent certainty that a particular card or cards will show up in any given draft (and remove some preplanning around cards that are available in multiples).
Support less colors. The removal of a color from the grid population seemed so radical once upon a time and yet is simple and elegant. I haven't tried to make a 2-player grid with all 5 colors yet (and may not), but for now, the 4-color grid is one of my steadfast grid blueprints. As Jason alluded to in his article, removing a color (or colors) makes the average card more impactful for each player (and creates more decision points, thus increasing replayability). I could also see a high number of colorless cards achieving a similar state.
Color balance and combination support. In the vein of making the average card more impactful on each players' decisions, color-pair support can be reduced (for example, to less than the six pairs a 4-color Magic normally supports). Additionally, I've found color imbalance to be an interesting knob to turn in the hopes of making the average card more relevant; if one color or pair/cluster is too impactful in game play, shift some of its quantity in the population to a less impactful color (or pair/cluster).
Multiples are encouraged. To support the thematic approach of retail Limited or yesteryear's Constructed formats, I've taken to liberally including multiples (up to 4 copies!) in most of my grids. Though, cube-inspired grids that strictly adhere to singleton are also fun (and have been a bit harder for me to confidently design).
The advantage of a multiple-copy approach is really helpful in governing card interactions at certain densities of effect (as mentioned in the power band discussion prior). Beyond synergy pairs/clusters, multiples will support disruptive interactions between both players. For example, red in a grid may have instant speed interaction at 2R mana for artifacts or 2-toughness-or-less creatures (Molten Blast) or exiling sorcery interaction at 2RR mana for 5-toughness-or-less creatures (Puncturing Blast); the red decks' opponents will be able to parse out possible interactions more easily given the limited options. In a singleton environment, a similar approach can be taken by finding several cards that are similar in interaction in a color (or color pair/cluster) over two consecutive mana values or consecutive values for determining affected targets/etc.
Velocity of gameplay. Through managing density (and the cost) of effects, the pace of games can be managed to be quicker or slower. Resources can be configured more abundant (to create a constant or accelerated velocity) or scarce (that may create an inconsistent and/or decreasing velocity after a certain point). (I typically enjoy a slower, consistent velocity that leads to 7-or-more-turn games.)
Archive of older versions:
It seems pretty "easy" to create a Limited-inspired or Cube-inspired grid, but the Constructed-inspired metagames have been a real chore to build (as both attempts have gone through many big changes and only remains active as of writing this update). Also, many, many thanks to @Kirblinx for all of his help developing the early Invitational Limelight (formerly Med Mage) grid and the forum folks who've spent the time and energy to invest in this community (and my posts)! Look below for old and active grids!
For those who haven't read Jason's CFB article on 4c grid, I suggest doing so prior to continuing on: http://www.channelfireball.com/home/grid-tenchester-and-cutting-a-color-from-the-cube/
Why am I obsessed with grid drafting (beyond it being insanely fun)? One, as Grillo postulated (assumedly) "[that it is most likely the best conventional draft simulator]", it is a one-versus-one Limited format where decks can come out looking like beautifully constructed draft decks. Two, the open information during drafting allows for a Constructed-metagame-approach to deck building (where sideboard cards may be maindecked or "name a card" abilities are useful from Turn 1 onward); I take a photo/screenshot of my opponents' pool prior to deck building to refer to and limit the necessity for memory during play. Three, given the correct exposure, I firmly believe grid drafting (or some variant of head-to-head drafting) could be a popular way to play with enjoyable cards that don't find home in competitive Constructed, Commander or traditional Cube Limited.
(The second and third posts link my active and retired grid populations.)
Background (a.k.a. Useless Fluff)
A few years ago, I tried to capture the excitement of my youth in a Solomon/Winston (two head-to-head drafting formats) designed "Cube" paying homage to IPA limited, but it never came together to really create an exciting gaming experience. So, I dissembled the disappointment, moved away from head-to-head drafting and starting chasing fantasy set design (similar to "set cubes").
By then, I'd read some of Jason's CFB articles and ended up here. Some of y'all took the initiative to get together a MTGO collection, and I got my first taste of grid drafting with @safra 's Sharzad (v.Around.BFZ.And.OGW.I.Guess), minus one color via Forum Games. It was everything I wanted in my one-versus-one Limited Magic. I even started down the path of distilling a Sharzad card population built specifically for grid drafting without a color, but beyond the cursory sketch, I abandoned the project.
Shortly after, a friend visited me and I assembled some sloppy grids from the my two Fantasy Set Cubes for us to draft and game. The more complicated Fantasy Set Cube grids were a trainwreck, but two of them from an OG-Ravnica-themed set of mostly commons and uncommons produced many fantastic games. We often played best of 7 or 9 games after drafting a pool. That weekend was enough to set me on the path to *really* think about what a cube constructed as self-contained grid drafting card pool would entail.
Designing for Head-to-Head Drafting: A Guide to Building a Grid (Cube)
Grid has felt like an ideal environment to cram parasitic (and/or healthy) themes down throats, like one might find in a retail Limited set or with Constructed decks. The format also seems ideal to create really weird metagames- the sort kitchen-deck battles of which many MTG players may be fond. There is an opportunity to provide game agency to both players and a variety of cards (but if the grid experience fails, only two individuals are impacted, and *hopefully* not past the point where they would glean some sort of enjoyment from the experience).
My approach for a while was to design either (1) variations of existing draft formats or (2) try to emulate some weird Extended or Standard metagame from a decade ago. Recently, I've enjoyed curating strange cube-like environments (peasant or lower power) through taking the core-set-synergy approach focusing on stringing a few cards interactions together as micro-archetypes rather than supporting 15 or so cards in an overtly macro-archetype.
When working on a grid, there is only one rule that I won't break: design the card population for primarily grid drafting. This is the most obvious rule (as grid drafting and three-packs-of-15, left-right-left drafting are quite different deck-building mechanisms) and the most important rule as it drastically shapes how the card population is constructed. It's my assumption that grid drafting sets a more restrictive environment from a design point of view and any other styles of drafting will be enjoyable if the card population is designed from solely the intention to be drafted in grids. (This assumption hasn't really been tested at all... lol.)
Grid drafting mechanics are a *lot* different than traditional cube, and the numbers of effect/card types and spells at particular mana costs should be considered under the unique implications of grid drafting.
- Each player gets 50% "first-to-second" picks and 50% "second-to-third" picks.
- Each card selected when picking first cannot be drafted by an opponent; cards not selected by a player in a grid are publicly known to be out of the possibility for future selection.
- The opponent's total selected card pool is public knowledge (so as mentioned prior, cards like Meddling Mage and Cabal Therapy or sideboard cards have a lot more play than in normal cube).
General Attributes - Original Post https://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/im-going-gaga-for-grid-drafting.1522/post-65153
So what does building a healthy format around 14-18 "first", "second" ...and "third" picks really look like? I am by no means near the magic formulae for grids but have learned a few lessons about which attribute of a population really makes the format tick: the power band.
The majority of the population should be built within a tight power band, with some allowance for variation above and below the mean card (but not dramatically so). This is to fight against most 3x3 grids having "clear first picks" and to promote synergy-based card selection as means over overcoming the individual card power band.
As a grid designer, I really want to converge on a draft environment where players start by picking cards that are powerful in a vacuum or are exciting synergy enablers and then transition to picking cards to fill out their deck (rather than always slam the "strictly best" cards in each 3x3 and end up playing games that feel as though they came from super-sealed). The method of card selection in grid *really* punishes cards that are not in the higher power tiers given the population when there are dramatic outliers to take in their stead; cards that are not up to snuff will almost never be picked on purpose (and only end up available for deck building if a better pick was available in the same row or column). In conventional drafting, due to the nature of packs and picks, the lower-tier cards at least often end up in a drafter's pile of cards available for deck building when card selection has ceased (given their color(s) align with that of the drafter), but in grid drafting, they are simply discarded.
All of the following musings are in relation to the power band:
Density of effects (and their costs). This won't be a surprise to anyone, but trimming down the number of cards that were "just good" in favor for increasing the density of certain archetype-support cards (more token-makers in colors supporting the strategy, more 2-mana-value creatures to enable board presence for combat steps, etc.) was the first step to enabling more viable deck types during gameplay. Then, reducing the most powerful/efficient removal/disruption spells in quantity gave room to assemble interactions. After these changes, two-color synergy decks were proving viable against the 3-4c "goodstuff" monstrosities (and bouncelands or shocklands were going unpicked in favor of picking up synergy components).
I assume there is a formulaic approach to finding the correct densities of disruptive/synergy interaction along with the number of cards required at different mana/color costs *and* the lands available to pay for color requirements along different desired levels of power. I haven't worked through it for my different active grids (but it's on my wish list of mind-numbing hobby tasks to investigate). I also assume this all runs parallel to the "asfan" or Pack Size conversations (but I, ignorantly, also haven't delved into that topic).
Quantity versus quality. One tricky part was finding an average card power level such that the opportunity cost (opponent can take the powerful cards) of taking "less powerful" cards when choosing first isn't too high. Initially, one of my early grids seemed to favor 2-for-1 goodstuff piles with cards like Enlisted Wurm, Auratouched Mage and Compulsive Research dictating games' outcomes. During the actual card selection process, the slower pace of games led both players to selecting cards that provided card advantage regardless of color just so the opposing player wouldn't get too far ahead in the 2-for-1 slugout. Neither deck focused on synergies with both decks aiming to glean advantages of opportunity from the synergies here and there, should they arise during game play.
Most cards should naturally fit into multiple deck archetypes, especially if they are on the lower end of the power band (which should makeup a larger percentage of the population). This is to add incentive to picking a slightly less powerful card in tandem with an additional less powerful card or a card the opponent could play. Lands often will fall into this paradigm, but lower-tier removal and replaceable creatures or smoothing effects should as well.
High numbers of playables. Given the way picks in grid occur, a tight power band should lead to a *large* amount of playables for each drafter. This abundance of playables, coupled with the one-versus-one nature of the format should lead to hate-drafting as a strategy for some number of first-pick packs (most likely, during the mid-to-latter half of the grid). As players play "cat and mouse" to lay claim to particular colors or strategies, they should find speculative picks valuable in the early-to-middle portion of the draft.
With speculative and hate picks leading to a nonlinear pool of selected cards, players may find themselves able to support different archetypes than anticipated (especially within the colors selected) as pick selection progresses. With proper densities and power band maintained, the initial picks during drafting should never pigeonhole a player into a color or strategy, but instead give them the option to invest more if the opportunities arise. At the end of the draft, it shouldn't be uncommon for a multitude of different archetypes to be viable decks for a player (even if only two colors were drafted heavily); restrictive mana costs, interactive spells and curve considerations should be weighed against expected opposition to create some questions for the deck builder to address with their build (and possibly readdress in sideboarding).
Tricks to Manage the Power Band
With the power band firmly in mind, a few specific tactics (that many use in existing cube design) will assist tuning the card population and draft/play experiences:
Draft only a subset of the 162/180/etc total cards. After some 144 card populations were drafted in their entirety, card populations were increased to 162 cards (multiples of 18) where only 144 cards were meant to be drafted at a time. This was in direct response to players with familiarity drafting with 100 percent certainty that a particular card or cards will show up in any given draft (and remove some preplanning around cards that are available in multiples).
Support less colors. The removal of a color from the grid population seemed so radical once upon a time and yet is simple and elegant. I haven't tried to make a 2-player grid with all 5 colors yet (and may not), but for now, the 4-color grid is one of my steadfast grid blueprints. As Jason alluded to in his article, removing a color (or colors) makes the average card more impactful for each player (and creates more decision points, thus increasing replayability). I could also see a high number of colorless cards achieving a similar state.
Color balance and combination support. In the vein of making the average card more impactful on each players' decisions, color-pair support can be reduced (for example, to less than the six pairs a 4-color Magic normally supports). Additionally, I've found color imbalance to be an interesting knob to turn in the hopes of making the average card more relevant; if one color or pair/cluster is too impactful in game play, shift some of its quantity in the population to a less impactful color (or pair/cluster).
Multiples are encouraged. To support the thematic approach of retail Limited or yesteryear's Constructed formats, I've taken to liberally including multiples (up to 4 copies!) in most of my grids. Though, cube-inspired grids that strictly adhere to singleton are also fun (and have been a bit harder for me to confidently design).
The advantage of a multiple-copy approach is really helpful in governing card interactions at certain densities of effect (as mentioned in the power band discussion prior). Beyond synergy pairs/clusters, multiples will support disruptive interactions between both players. For example, red in a grid may have instant speed interaction at 2R mana for artifacts or 2-toughness-or-less creatures (Molten Blast) or exiling sorcery interaction at 2RR mana for 5-toughness-or-less creatures (Puncturing Blast); the red decks' opponents will be able to parse out possible interactions more easily given the limited options. In a singleton environment, a similar approach can be taken by finding several cards that are similar in interaction in a color (or color pair/cluster) over two consecutive mana values or consecutive values for determining affected targets/etc.
Velocity of gameplay. Through managing density (and the cost) of effects, the pace of games can be managed to be quicker or slower. Resources can be configured more abundant (to create a constant or accelerated velocity) or scarce (that may create an inconsistent and/or decreasing velocity after a certain point). (I typically enjoy a slower, consistent velocity that leads to 7-or-more-turn games.)
Archive of older versions:
Original Post said:
It seems pretty "easy" to create a Limited-inspired or Cube-inspired grid, but the Constructed-inspired metagames have been a real chore to build (as both attempts have gone through many big changes and only remains active as of writing this update). Also, many, many thanks to @Kirblinx for all of his help developing the early Invitational Limelight (formerly Med Mage) grid and the forum folks who've spent the time and energy to invest in this community (and my posts)! Look below for old and active grids!
Last edited:
Artifact and/or Token Aggro
