Sets [KTK] Khans of Tarkir Spoilers
- Thread starter anotak
- Start date
They will if I can help it.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
Zur's problem is that he's three colors AND he costs four. That's a pretty tough niche, since as we know everything costs four.
A lot of the awesome three color cards in this set cost three. They seem very playable so long as your mana is up to snuff.
With both those things said, its probable 3 color cards aren't "worth a slot" on some abstract level and would be better off distributed by some alternative means.
A lot of the awesome three color cards in this set cost three. They seem very playable so long as your mana is up to snuff.
With both those things said, its probable 3 color cards aren't "worth a slot" on some abstract level and would be better off distributed by some alternative means.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I was referring to multi-colored cycles.
For me personally, I want to run an even number of multi-colored cards. If I don't do that (or get close), I feel like I'm pushing certain combinations. With shards, it's already a "pushed" idea so I'm not sure the same rules apply. But it still wouldn't feel right or logical to me to run Lightning Angel and Siege Rhino and no other tri-color cards. What's the rational behind that move? While I could convince myself to run Wild Nacatl as my Naya card, even that feels a little sloppy since that card is living in my mono green section right now (for better or worse), so some reclassification seems justified.
I get some people really don't care about balancing colors and just run what they want (choosing to balance arch types instead). That's cool, I just don't like that approach personally.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Don't feel bad doing it man, you're the only one who will even see it
Nobody sits down to draft a cube and goes "Oh man, cryptic command! Clearly that means that all 5 commands are in here, and that really changes my drafting strategy!"Jamming sub par cards to fill out circular quotas really ends up with a bunch of poor cards in your cube (See above). If nobody wanted boros signet, would you still feel the need to run all 10? I have a feeling you'll find that coming up with 10 3 color cards, they wont all be hits. Some of them will work out some of the time, but probably 2-3 will really be cards that your drafters are actually excited about.
The easiest approach is to start by running all of the multicolour cards that you want, and then trimming or adding monocolour cards to even out the ratios. Red has always had both the best and the most gold cards here - between its strong Rakdos, Gruul, and Izzet sections - so I compensate by running three fewer mono-red cards than the average. This approach also lets you jam as many or as few hybrid cards as you want, without needing to worry about whether Kitchen Finks is better classified as a white card or a green card.
For the longest time, I've run Wild Nacatl and Cruel Ultimatum as my only tri-colour cards, but nobody bats an eye, nor asks me what my Bant slot is filled with. Similarly, I'd be surprised if your players were upset that you only ran Lightning Angel.
For the longest time, I've run Wild Nacatl and Cruel Ultimatum as my only tri-colour cards, but nobody bats an eye, nor asks me what my Bant slot is filled with. Similarly, I'd be surprised if your players were upset that you only ran Lightning Angel.
RWU is pretty common actually. You should see how often people play certain archetypes. I had 2 more ideas that I'm sure everyone will dismiss out of hand like my land ideas:
1) 3 colour cards occupy some of the same stupid awkward draft space as utility lands.
2) might be a good oppertunity to do multicard picks where say you pick up a cruel ultimatum and a ughh double cascade guy in the same pick so as not to pollute too heavily.
1) 3 colour cards occupy some of the same stupid awkward draft space as utility lands.
2) might be a good oppertunity to do multicard picks where say you pick up a cruel ultimatum and a ughh double cascade guy in the same pick so as not to pollute too heavily.
I think that's an interesting idea actually. One of the things I'm constantly struggling with is what to support and how to support it. I see so many cool ideas and I want to incorporate a lot of what I see guys posting, but there is a finite design space to work in. And each new set of cards just creates more and more opportunities. While this is absolutely a positive thing, I wind up sometimes in "analysis paralysis" because it gets overwhelming pretty quickly when you don't start drawing lines in the sand.
Everyone has their own way of dealing with the limitless design space that is cube. And no one way is the right way. For me, it's coming up with hard restrictions on inclusions - artificial rules that set parameters around which I build. We all do it to some extent and our design restrictions vary from extremely arbitrary (me), to organic approaches (what does my group draft?), to some of the more complex ideas I see guys do here.
Getting a little off topic there, but it ties in to the discussion. Bottom line though is I'm a fan of what you are suggesting. Not sure how I would implement it (these ideas tend to introduce more complexity in the drafting and I get static on that usually). But I like where you are going with it.
I want to try and support as much as I can. Tri-color cards I think intrinsically do the opposite because they very rigidly define a collection of colors. And yet many of them I think have really sweet mechanics and/or really fit a particular play style at my table. So I'm tempted to try and include them in some capacity. I just don't know what makes sense right now. From previous iterations of my cube, I know for a fact that more multi-colored cards hurts drafting. I cut down to only 20 in 400 for a reason (as mentioned before, this doesn't include hybrids and other things like multi-colored flashback, so this number is not absolute). In any case, I fail to see how I make my draft better by running Lightning Angel. I will make one guy at the table happy, but is that worth losing a colorless card that maybe more than one guy would run (but that rarely gets drafted)? It's not black and white is my point.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I don't know if you had the chance to look over FSR's article/post in his cube thread, here, but I would recomend it. It might help you situate yourself a little better, with all of these ideas. When I was reading his account, I realized a lot of his experience bled over into my own.
This part really hit home with my own design experiences:
This is another important exert i.m.o:
Even if you don't end up completely riping apart your cube, it might be a helpful exercise to put it under a microscope, and really deconstruct it from the point of view of what makes your games fun, and what format do you want to build to achieve that.
This part really hit home with my own design experiences:
This is another important exert i.m.o:
Even if you don't end up completely riping apart your cube, it might be a helpful exercise to put it under a microscope, and really deconstruct it from the point of view of what makes your games fun, and what format do you want to build to achieve that.
What you are describing is one very valid approach to design. But it's not the only way to go about it. I personally don't want to push themes too heavily or overly emphasize gimmicks (which is where this type of design can lead if you let it). At the end of the day there really isn't any one perfect way to design a cube and I truly believe it's largely playgroup and resource dependent.
While I think the "group think" criticisms we have of MTGS are true, to some extent you see the same things on Riptide. If you build a cube with heavily pushed themes and overemphasis on certain mechanics, you end up making a cube that only plays well if it's drafted a certain way. That's great if your group always drafts that way I guess, but I'd rather guys not go into auto-draft mode if I can help it. It's especially a problem for my group because they aren't going to take the time to learn how to build the decks I'm pushing in the cube. Whether I like it or not, goodstuff.dec has to be sort of competitive in my drafts because at least one guy is going to build that regardless of how much sweet tech I put into the cube. That's just the way it is.
Honestly, the design approach described above requires more testing than I have time for. So it really isn't even an option for me anyway. My group gets together very rarely these days, so I can't really go super experimental and rely on 10 draft iterations to make the proper tweaks to where Fatestitcher is playable. This is one area where I think the MTGS "max-power" mindset has some validity. You kind of want cards to stand up on their own and not be useless without a deck surrounding it (and those that are useless, you want it to be obvious how to build a deck around them). Again, maybe you guys all game with super Magic nerds who just love the game to the point where they dig into the details to the level you all do, but not all of us have groups like that. My players do not follow this game that closely so boutique style cube designs are just going to lose people.
While I prefer the more outside the box thinking here to the dogmatic views on MTGS, my own cube falls somewhere in between both extremes simply from a practical standpoint. I'd personally rather have a "good stuff with a focus on synergy cube" than one with heavily defined arch types and esoteric themes because I know it will be more fun for my audience. And so it doesn't really bother me that I'm running Hypnotic Specter when he really has no tie in with any particular mechanic (I just love the new art and get a nostalgic warm fuzzy seeing it in drafts, as does at least one other guy). I try to have general ideas in each color (black likes the graveyard, killing things and zombies), but beyond that I really sort of want to just pick cards that are good and fill holes in my curve. It might be inelegant compared to other approaches, but I know I won't end up with a table where 4 of the 6 decks are unplayable messes.
And because my group is super casual, I'd rather drafts just be organic and fairly intuitive. I don't want guys trying to build a pod deck or a hyper powerful aggro deck for a variety of reasons. I feel like that hurts creativity to overly support those themes because you then have to build efficient decks to compete (instead of exploring unusual combinations of cards). And at least initially, guys would make mangled versions of the more esoteric stuff and it would result in uneven matches. This is actually a reason my cube remains semi-retro. I can only introduce so many new concepts before guys just get annoyed and start telling me why they stopped keeping up with the game (one guy flew off the handle when I rebounded Consuming Vapors on him just to give an example of what I have to work through). It's a delicate balance over here. LOL.
While I think the "group think" criticisms we have of MTGS are true, to some extent you see the same things on Riptide. If you build a cube with heavily pushed themes and overemphasis on certain mechanics, you end up making a cube that only plays well if it's drafted a certain way. That's great if your group always drafts that way I guess, but I'd rather guys not go into auto-draft mode if I can help it. It's especially a problem for my group because they aren't going to take the time to learn how to build the decks I'm pushing in the cube. Whether I like it or not, goodstuff.dec has to be sort of competitive in my drafts because at least one guy is going to build that regardless of how much sweet tech I put into the cube. That's just the way it is.
Honestly, the design approach described above requires more testing than I have time for. So it really isn't even an option for me anyway. My group gets together very rarely these days, so I can't really go super experimental and rely on 10 draft iterations to make the proper tweaks to where Fatestitcher is playable. This is one area where I think the MTGS "max-power" mindset has some validity. You kind of want cards to stand up on their own and not be useless without a deck surrounding it (and those that are useless, you want it to be obvious how to build a deck around them). Again, maybe you guys all game with super Magic nerds who just love the game to the point where they dig into the details to the level you all do, but not all of us have groups like that. My players do not follow this game that closely so boutique style cube designs are just going to lose people.
While I prefer the more outside the box thinking here to the dogmatic views on MTGS, my own cube falls somewhere in between both extremes simply from a practical standpoint. I'd personally rather have a "good stuff with a focus on synergy cube" than one with heavily defined arch types and esoteric themes because I know it will be more fun for my audience. And so it doesn't really bother me that I'm running Hypnotic Specter when he really has no tie in with any particular mechanic (I just love the new art and get a nostalgic warm fuzzy seeing it in drafts, as does at least one other guy). I try to have general ideas in each color (black likes the graveyard, killing things and zombies), but beyond that I really sort of want to just pick cards that are good and fill holes in my curve. It might be inelegant compared to other approaches, but I know I won't end up with a table where 4 of the 6 decks are unplayable messes.
And because my group is super casual, I'd rather drafts just be organic and fairly intuitive. I don't want guys trying to build a pod deck or a hyper powerful aggro deck for a variety of reasons. I feel like that hurts creativity to overly support those themes because you then have to build efficient decks to compete (instead of exploring unusual combinations of cards). And at least initially, guys would make mangled versions of the more esoteric stuff and it would result in uneven matches. This is actually a reason my cube remains semi-retro. I can only introduce so many new concepts before guys just get annoyed and start telling me why they stopped keeping up with the game (one guy flew off the handle when I rebounded Consuming Vapors on him just to give an example of what I have to work through). It's a delicate balance over here. LOL.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Yeah, I agree with you for the most part, but I think the most important thing to take away from his post is the idea of thinking in terms of what makes your games fun, and then deciding how to shape your format to achieve it. At this point you are clearly not in a position to rebuild your entire cube, but you are making changes to it, and as you mentioned, needing to come up with a structure on how to decide what is and isn't implemented. Those sorts of experiences are a data point that might help you with that process.
I think there is a difference between building an environment, and heavily pushing themes. I've done the latter, and the end is unnecessarily rigidness in the draft, while the former allows for a lot of flexibility and creativity, if done well.
I think there is a difference between building an environment, and heavily pushing themes. I've done the latter, and the end is unnecessarily rigidness in the draft, while the former allows for a lot of flexibility and creativity, if done well.
Great post. I agree with a lot of what you've said here, ahadabans.
I, too, prefer riptide cubes over mtgs cubes, but I agree that there is a danger in making themes too explicit; though this is play-group dependent. My approach is to allow for some very loose themes, but then simply try to include cards which have a high innovation-potential factor. Regarding the question of 3-color, I would do the same.
I also have an OCD attachment to color balance, but I do make a few minor exceptions. For example: in my green section I include Treefolk Harbinger with a red sticker, which means you also gain a Murmuring Bosk and a Doran, the Siege Tower. So, this is essentially a 3-color pick. However, Doran is a very unique card with an intense impact and a lot of "build around me" potential. I would not bother with Lightning Angel since she is basically just a fancy beater.
The only other 3-color cards I currently run are the allied shards:
Wild Nacatl
Broodmate Dragon
Rafiq of the Many
Ertai, the Corrupted
Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker
Why only allied shards? OCD. But it doesn't matter. They are all interesting and can serve a purpose somewhere.
So I guess my personal rule is that OCD is fine, but don't let it force you to add uninteresting cards, and don't let it keep you from adding interesting cards.
I, too, prefer riptide cubes over mtgs cubes, but I agree that there is a danger in making themes too explicit; though this is play-group dependent. My approach is to allow for some very loose themes, but then simply try to include cards which have a high innovation-potential factor. Regarding the question of 3-color, I would do the same.
I also have an OCD attachment to color balance, but I do make a few minor exceptions. For example: in my green section I include Treefolk Harbinger with a red sticker, which means you also gain a Murmuring Bosk and a Doran, the Siege Tower. So, this is essentially a 3-color pick. However, Doran is a very unique card with an intense impact and a lot of "build around me" potential. I would not bother with Lightning Angel since she is basically just a fancy beater.
The only other 3-color cards I currently run are the allied shards:
Wild Nacatl
Broodmate Dragon
Rafiq of the Many
Ertai, the Corrupted
Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker
Why only allied shards? OCD. But it doesn't matter. They are all interesting and can serve a purpose somewhere.
So I guess my personal rule is that OCD is fine, but don't let it force you to add uninteresting cards, and don't let it keep you from adding interesting cards.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
While I wrote my year in review in the context of my own cube, I think the passage Grillo quoted is fairly universally applicable. It has nothing to do with supporting themes or heavy testing. All I'm saying is. . .
Wait, he already said it.
I know I love my cube, I love how it plays and I love that other people like it. I also don't think the draft experience is nearly as rigid or inorganic as you think it is, but that's neither here nor there. My cube got to this point not by copying someone's structure (although I did do some of that), incorporating other people's design principles (even though I did some of that too), blatantly stealing concepts (although I definitely did that) or benefiting from other peoples experience and testing (but of course I did that). It got to that point because I got my thoughts in order, figured out what I wanted, then did all that other stuff. And I didn't just take other people's ideas at face value, I expanded, altered and rebelled against them until they worked for me.
And that's all anyone should do. Tune out the static, figure out what they want then utilize the resources they have to the best of their abilities to get it.
Wait, he already said it.
I know I love my cube, I love how it plays and I love that other people like it. I also don't think the draft experience is nearly as rigid or inorganic as you think it is, but that's neither here nor there. My cube got to this point not by copying someone's structure (although I did do some of that), incorporating other people's design principles (even though I did some of that too), blatantly stealing concepts (although I definitely did that) or benefiting from other peoples experience and testing (but of course I did that). It got to that point because I got my thoughts in order, figured out what I wanted, then did all that other stuff. And I didn't just take other people's ideas at face value, I expanded, altered and rebelled against them until they worked for me.
And that's all anyone should do. Tune out the static, figure out what they want then utilize the resources they have to the best of their abilities to get it.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I just wanted to emphasis this point, because it’s just such a struggle for me to express.
My main problem with my old cube was that I was just patching in other people's ideas without really understanding what environment I wanted, what environment I had, and how the cards I was adding would impact that environment. It was kind of like the adage of "too many cooks ruin the stew," I was just adding all of these different ingredients, with no appreciation for how they would mix with one another or mix with what I already had. Worst of all, I wasn't really taking into account my individual player's tastes, and I think I could fairly attribute almost every problem my old cube had with that faulty approach of mine. Being able to sit down and say "I want x, y, and z because my players like a, b, and c", and then developing a plan to achieve that (and sticking to it), was the best thing I did for my cube, if for no other reason than it forced me to think critically and holistically about what I was doing.
I think it’s a really helpful point, because blindly patching in any cube forum's idea without really understanding why you are doing it, I think is kind of a gamble. The reason you should be doing anything is because it makes games your players will enjoy, not just because someone told you theme z or card x was awesome or essential or even a good idea.
CML
Contributor
Basically Zur is a sweet Cube card because he requires no design space, there are no cards that people will play with only Zur that work in Cube and this makes him close to pure upside, there's no opportunity cost to running a Cube with Prison Term and Bitterblossom and Threads of Disloyalty.
However, the upside is very low because nobody plays with him and it's just so hard to imagine a Cube where he fits.
THE DANGER OF A BAD MULTICOLOR FORMAT:
I just wasted part of an evening doing an RTR draft on Modo. The format is unbelievably terrible. I have not been so bored with limited since the last time I played a grim mongo cube. Not only are the games incredibly bomb-based or color-screw-oriented, it's also the kind of multicolor format which gets the tards moaning about "4c goodstuff" WHEN THEY CANNOT SEE THAT EVERY FUCKING OTHER THING IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THEIR IDIOT FORMAT. I was fairly sure this was the case prior to reading all the articles that praised RTR block to the stars, but (after hatred of college + pretending to be into the whole MTG community thing + any number poor dating choices) this is yet another instance of misery arising from a failure to trust my intuition. The incidence of good games is around 10%. Liking this draft format would be a dealbreaker on the order of enjoying How I Met Your Mother or Ayn Rand novels.
However, the upside is very low because nobody plays with him and it's just so hard to imagine a Cube where he fits.
THE DANGER OF A BAD MULTICOLOR FORMAT:
I just wasted part of an evening doing an RTR draft on Modo. The format is unbelievably terrible. I have not been so bored with limited since the last time I played a grim mongo cube. Not only are the games incredibly bomb-based or color-screw-oriented, it's also the kind of multicolor format which gets the tards moaning about "4c goodstuff" WHEN THEY CANNOT SEE THAT EVERY FUCKING OTHER THING IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THEIR IDIOT FORMAT. I was fairly sure this was the case prior to reading all the articles that praised RTR block to the stars, but (after hatred of college + pretending to be into the whole MTG community thing + any number poor dating choices) this is yet another instance of misery arising from a failure to trust my intuition. The incidence of good games is around 10%. Liking this draft format would be a dealbreaker on the order of enjoying How I Met Your Mother or Ayn Rand novels.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Here's what I'm testing:
I figured I'd give Taigam's Scheming a shot since while re-ordering cards are terrible, it might be redeemed by being able to bin anything you don't want to draw at all. I always liked the concept of Wild Guess so I'll try the one that isn't color-wrecked. Become Immense is just cute, just to be a more flexible might of oaks gutpunch finisher for unblocked attackers.
I know the bow is a long shot (hurr) but I've got an x/1 thing going on so I figured I'd try it.
I figured I'd give Taigam's Scheming a shot since while re-ordering cards are terrible, it might be redeemed by being able to bin anything you don't want to draw at all. I always liked the concept of Wild Guess so I'll try the one that isn't color-wrecked. Become Immense is just cute, just to be a more flexible might of oaks gutpunch finisher for unblocked attackers.
I know the bow is a long shot (hurr) but I've got an x/1 thing going on so I figured I'd try it.
So this whole tricolor cube idea has had me brainstorming away trying to figure out how to both make it work, make it interesting, and make sure it goes deep with themes but isn't gonna leave rookies in the dark.
The best solution I've imagined is starting with each clan/shard's two cards(since 20 tricolor cards should be more than enough to push the theme here) and pick one card to support a plan in those colors while the second card is more just a power card that doesn't hurt the initial plan of its shard.
Example: Broodmate Dragon and sprouting thrinax for Jund. The thrinax loves to die and is fairly powered for its cost. It doesn't have to go in a sacrifice plan, but it helps a lot and seems like it could be very desirable. Broodmate Dragon is not an obvious supporter of a sacrifice plan but doesn't hurt the plan and is good on its own.
Obviously some colors can have their cake and eat it, too. BUG's Khan and mimeoplasm have synergy and point to a specific plan, but neither feels like they're unplayable if you don't assemble all the pieces. Obviously you guys can't see the removal I have in mind or any of the other tech...But I am confident that this can all work out in a way that should leave most drafters happy. Removal obviously should be weak and multicolor should be semi-rewarded(think ultimate price or civic saber). Only real concerns I have is making sure aggro is both good enough but not too good.
Personal questions:
Is Rafiq good enough?
What are some good naya cards that aren't wild nacatl?
Does red have any aggro one drops that aren't embarrassing after turn 3?(Besides my main man, SS. Elder)
The best solution I've imagined is starting with each clan/shard's two cards(since 20 tricolor cards should be more than enough to push the theme here) and pick one card to support a plan in those colors while the second card is more just a power card that doesn't hurt the initial plan of its shard.
Example: Broodmate Dragon and sprouting thrinax for Jund. The thrinax loves to die and is fairly powered for its cost. It doesn't have to go in a sacrifice plan, but it helps a lot and seems like it could be very desirable. Broodmate Dragon is not an obvious supporter of a sacrifice plan but doesn't hurt the plan and is good on its own.
Obviously some colors can have their cake and eat it, too. BUG's Khan and mimeoplasm have synergy and point to a specific plan, but neither feels like they're unplayable if you don't assemble all the pieces. Obviously you guys can't see the removal I have in mind or any of the other tech...But I am confident that this can all work out in a way that should leave most drafters happy. Removal obviously should be weak and multicolor should be semi-rewarded(think ultimate price or civic saber). Only real concerns I have is making sure aggro is both good enough but not too good.
Personal questions:
Is Rafiq good enough?
What are some good naya cards that aren't wild nacatl?
Does red have any aggro one drops that aren't embarrassing after turn 3?(Besides my main man, SS. Elder)
Re Naya cards, the only other ones I would consider are:
Haven't played rafiq but he seems good in a base white or green deck.
Red one drops I like:
And of course the elder. Not the most aggressive but I don't mind that as they are relatively useful later in the game too.
Haven't played rafiq but he seems good in a base white or green deck.
Red one drops I like:
And of course the elder. Not the most aggressive but I don't mind that as they are relatively useful later in the game too.
Triple RTR was good, it all went a bit downhill after. I suspect the problem was actually gatecrash and the cluestones in dragons maze.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Honestly Monestary Swiftspear is looking pretty good...
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I'm liking wooly thoctar and meglonoth...wooly for being right around the ideal size for a Naya 3 drop to feel good early and decent late. Meg for being a Timmy card that could help make the shocks/fetches/aggro dudes a little bit less scary. Only issue I see with it is that I don't want it dying very regularly after Timmy finally plays it. But I don't want it to feel invincible.
Wooly thoctar seems fine but is meg good enough?
Wooly thoctar seems fine but is meg good enough?
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
On "red" one drops: I don't run it yet, but this thing has a 97% chance of joining my cube next update: